9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od from 1-4-94 to 31-3-98. In addition, personal penalty of equivalent amount has been imposed under the provisions of Rule 57-I(4) along with confirmation of interest under Rule 57-I(5) for the period from 1-3-97 to 31-3-98. 2. Shri V. Sreedharan, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that out of the total demand of duty confirmed by the adjudicating authority, an amount of Rs. 13,81,023.00 (Rupees thirteen lakh eighty-one thousand twenty-three) was taken by them as Modvat credit of the Additional Excise Duty and paid on Tyre Cord Fabrics purchased from the market and used in the manufacture of Dipped Fabric. He submits that during the relevant period, the issue as regards the dutiability of Dipped Fabric was under consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed much more number of ADV tyres during the relevant period, either in full truck-load or along with other tyres. As such, submits the learned Advocate that this exercise conducted by the Revenue is not representative of actual weight of ADV tyres and the appellants cannot be directed to debit more Modvat on the basis of such exercise conducted by the Revenue. He also submits that the appellants have availed the credit to the tune of around Rs. 94.00 crore during the period in question and the amount of Rs. 12.71 lakh for a period of over five years based upon the findings, is negligible. He also submits that such computation is based on an estimate and the difference is only marginal. Shri Sreedharan also disputes the said demand of duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Modvat Rules and they are liable to reverse the credit only in respect of the quantum contained in the final product and no credit reversal is required inasmuch as such manufacturing loss is covered by the provisions of Rule 57D. They have also contested the demand on the point of limitation. 5. On the question of confirmed interest and imposition of penalty upon the appellants, learned Advocate submits that the provisions of Rule 57-I(4) providing for imposition of penalty and Rule 57-I(5) providing for liability to pay interest, are only applicable when the Credit of Duty has been taken wrongly on account of fraud, wilful misstatement, collusion or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or the Rules made the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons for reversal of Credit on the lower side. As rightly argued by the learned Advocate, the actual weight of ADV tyres adopted by the Revenue by weighing the full truck of ADV tyres on some occasions, cannot be held to be representative of the actual weight of all the ADV tyres. On the other hand, the appellants have adopted the standard weight based upon their Chartered Engineer s Certificate and there is no denial of the said fact. We also note that the said demand pertains to the period from 1-4-94 to 31-3-98 whereas the show cause notice was issued on 3-5-99. As such, the same is clearly barred by limitation, inasmuch as the appellants were reversing the Credit on the standard weight which was in the knowledge of the Revenue. Similarl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
