Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (9) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... propriated and imposed penalty of Rs. 20,67,200/- under Rule 57-I(4) and a further penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- under Rule 173-Q(1)(bb). There is also a demand of interest under Rule 57-I(5). The period involved is from August 1994 to September 1997. The show cause notice is dated 4-8-99. 2. The appellant is a manufacturer of motor vehicles falling under Chapter 87. They have a factory at Alwar in Rajasthan and another one at Ennore, Madras. The components are manufactured at Ennore, Madras and are supplied to Alwar Factory where assembly of motor vehicles takes effect. Some of the components are purchased from outside by the Ennore factory and sent to Alwar. Under the show cause notice dated 4-8-99 issued by the Commissioner of Central Exc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rom 6-11-89 to 30-6-94. Detailed replies were filed to the above show cause notices. Thereafter the Additional Commissioner passed an order dated 5-1-98 sustaining the demand against which an appeal had been preferred by the assessee before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. It was contended that there was no suppression of facts which would enable the Revenue to take recourse to the larger period of limitation of the department was fully aware of the nature of the transactions which were identical to that obtained during the period from 6-11-89 to 30-6-94 covered by the earlier show cause notices. The department was fully aware of the manner of receipt of the goods in Alwar factory and taking of Modvat credit on the same by the ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n is liable to be applied. On merits, it was held that a credit of Rs. 70,10,288/- pertaining to inputs where discrepancy is only with reference to part No. and the goods are of the same generic name, description and value and duty amount is admissible to them. Remaining amount of Modvat credit of Rs. 64,881,078/- out of the total amount recalculated at Rs. 1,34,91,399/- which had been availed by the assessee on the inputs which have not been received along with the invoice is not admissible to them and therefore, to be disallowed. In the present appeal before this Tribunal detailed contentions have been taken on the merits of the case and arguments were addressed on those points by the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant would .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d to the appellant on 29-10-94 and 30-10-95. The above proceeding had ended in an order dated 5-1-98 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise sustaining the demand in the show cause notice. The present show cause notice for the period from August 1994 to September 1997 was issued only on 4-8-99. The appellant is fully justified in contending that the department is fully aware of the system followed by the appellant in the matter of transferring the components from Ennore to Alwar unit and taking Modvat credit on the same. We find no merit in the reason given by the learned Commissioner for rejecting this contention, namely that the appellant had failed to intimate the department that they were continuing the same procedure in .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... from the earlier period of demand, namely from 6-11-89 to 30-6-94. We find no merit in the contention put forward on behalf of the Revenue that since the amounts were paid under protest there was no necessity to issue a show cause notice. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the demand under the show cause notice dated 4-8-99 is barred by limitation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that so long as the assessment of Ennore factory on the basis of duty paid on the different components transferred from there to Alwar has not been reopened, it is not permissible to have a different assessment at the receiving end. In support of the submission he placed reliance on the following decisions :- Eveready Indust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates