9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1991 for which additional duty of Customs was duly paid under assessed bill of entry dated 9-4-1991. Thereafter the appellants wrote to their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities on 22-7-1991 as regards the receipt of the said imported inputs in their factory and their intention to avail Modvat credit on the same with a request to deface the said bill of entry. He submits that though a separate declaration was also prepared by the appellants under the provision of Rule 57G, but the same could not be filed inadvertantly. He submits thereafter credit was taken in RG-23A Part-II and copies of the said statutory records in Part-I and Part-II were duly annexed with the relevant RT-12 returns. Thereafter the appellants were issued a show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upon the various Tribunal s judgments. 4. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR appears for the Revenue and submits that it is a necessary procedural requirement to file a declaration under Rule 57G before a credit can be taken by the assessee. This having not admittedly done by the appellants, availing of Modvat credit was irregular. As regards the limitation he submits that since the appellants have availed the Modvat credit without filing the declaration, the Revenue was justifying in invoking longer period of limitation. 5. In his rejoinder ld. Advocate submits that declaration was subsequently filed on 6-8-1991. 6. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides. The allegation against the appellants is that they availed the credit w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants succeed on this ground alone. 7. Apart from this I also find that the impugned show cause notice issued in the year 1993 is barred by limitation. A perusal of the said show cause notice shows that the same is based upon the scrutiny of statutory documents i.e. monthly RT-12 returns, RG-23A Part-I II. There is no allegation in the notice that these documents were not submitted by the appellants in time. As such I observe that if at all there was any discrepancies the Revenue should have issued the notice within a period of six months from the date of filing of the said documents. As such what has been done in the year 1993 i.e. after a lapse of two years could have been done by the Revenue within a period of six months. The Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
