9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 412X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 1.2 After hearing both the sides, we allow the Misc. application. 2. The following questions of law are stated to have arisen out of the final order: (1) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in arriving at the conclusion that the proviso to Section 11A of the Act is invokable in the present case; (2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in sustaining the imposition of penalty to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs on the applicants? 3. The brief facts necessary for the purpose of understanding the scope of the Reference Application are that the applicants herein who are manufacturers of motor vehicles, also manufactured trollies, bins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessees by the jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise stating that no modvat credit under Capital Goods heading is available on material handling equipment; learned Member (Technical) held that the assessees failed to prove ingredient of bona fide belief to entitle them to the benefit of limitation. 5. On the penalty aspect, while Member (Judicial) set aside the same, learned Member (Tech.) reduced the penalty to Rs. 5 lakhs. The difference between the two Members of the Original Bench was referred to the Third Member, who agreed with the learned Member (Tech.) that the demand was not barred by limitation and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was required to be sustained. 6. According to the applicants who are represented by Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of Rule 173H is established then the period of limitation should be five years and not 6 months from the date of payment of duty? It is in view of the fact that under Rule 173H no time limit is fixed within which duty paid goods could be returned to the factory and within which such duty paid goods could be removed from the factory after reprocessing. (3) Whether if the Tribunal's view is held to be correct, then no duty could be demanded in this case of any contravention under Rule 173H if duty paid goods are returned after 6 months from the date of payment of duty? Such a situation will obviously be not tenable. 9. None of these questions arise in this case and as seen from question No. 2, the High Court was considering a sit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
