9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore the credit of duty taken on the inputs was not required to be reversed. However, part of the pulp so manufactured was cleared to their sister units on stock transfer basis. The pulp by itself did not attract any duty. Since the pulp cleared to the sister units was the final product which was cleared without payment of duty, the apportionable Modvat credit on the inputs would be required to be reversed as prescribed under Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. However, in such a situation Rule 57CC prescribes payment of 8% of the duty on the final product admittedly eligible for duty free clearance and consequently the apportionable Modvat credit is not required to be reversed. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. were following thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Registry of this Tribunal on 22-8-2000. 3. It would appear that some time before the filing of this application seeking early disposal of stay application before the CEGAT, the assessees also filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur which was numbered as WP No. 2848 of 2000. This petition was heard on 24-8-2000 and orders passed thereupon. The orders directed the Tribunal to dispose of the application for grant of stay within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. This order was shown to us by Shri Deshpande today in the court and the case records do not contain a copy thereof. It would appear that the assessees did not care to place a copy thereof immediately on receipt i.e. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentative. 6. The limited issue for disposal is whether for the purpose of computation of the duty payable under Rule 57CC, the provisions of Rule 6(b)(i) should have been preferred over Rule 6(b)(ii). Shri Deshpande attempted to submit that the provisions of Rule 57CC would not be applicable to them. We are not inclined to go into that issue because the assessees have subjected themselves to that procedure. 7. Rule 6(b) of the Valuation Rules reads as under : - Where the excisable goods are not sold by the assessee but are used or consumed by him or on his behalf in the production or manufacture of other articles, the value shall be based - (i) on the value of the comparable goods produced or manufactured by the assessee or by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the applicants. 9. The bulk of the demand confirmed i.e. Rs. 1,04,40,028/- arises out of a show cause notice in which the extended period was invoked by the Commissioner alleging suppression of facts by the assessees. Shri Deshpande contends that the existence of the sister units was known to the department. He refers to the reply filed before the Commissioner to the effect that certain enquiries have been committed by the authorities earlier during which this fact had come to notice. In para (viii) of his order the Commissioner has not discussed this point of limitation. Thus the assessees have made a strong ground on limitation in the case of one out of three show cause notices. 10. Thus, on finding that strong prima facie case has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
