1999 (1) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d of Rs. 76,126.39 under the same proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, for being the Modvat credit utilised for payment of duty on computer parts. The penalty of Rs. 25,000/- has also been imposed under Rule 173Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules. 2. The appellants are manufacturers of computerised attendance recording system, computerised data acquisition and process control system and computer peripherals all classifiable under Chapter Heading 84.71 of the Central Excise Act. They had filed classification list for these items and were clearing the same on payment of duty. During the course of scrutiny of R.T. 12 returns, the Range Officer, Jayamahal Range, noticed that the appellant was clearing excisable goods such a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... learned Advocate while arguing the matter, submitted that this issue of time bar was argued at the prima facie stage and there was a difference of opinion between the two Members, which was placed before the President, who after a detailed consideration of the case law and facts, gave an opinion that there was no suppression in the matter and hence the demands were time barred and on the ground waiver was granted. He submits that the interim stay order itself is exhaustive and in the nature of final order and hence the same arguments and findings could be adopted for the purpose of disposing of this appeal. He also referred to case-laws and also to the facts available on records to the plea that there was no suppression in the matter. 4. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h an intension is to be proved through the appellants wilfull statements of suppression of facts or contravention of any of the provisions of the act or of the rule. The appellants in this case had been paying duty on the parts on the ground that the same is classifiable under sub-heading 84.71 and it was for the department at the time of approval of classification list, who should have called for better particulars and should have held that the item is classifiable under heading 84.73 and that the Chapter Note V of Chapter Heading 84 is not applicable to the facts of the present case as understood by the party. Such an exercise has not been done. The department has only woken up at the belated stage and such a view taken by the department .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X