9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 001 passed by the Commissioner. 2. The learned counsel has contended that the Modvat credit has been wrongly disallowed to the appellants and that there is also no evidence to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the appellants and that no extended period could be invoked, especially when it was not so invoked in the first show cause notice. The availability of the extended period of limitation, in fact, will be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata which applies to the cases falling under Central Excise Act as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 785 (S.C.). Besides this, the appellants are also facing financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made during the disputed period by the appellants. The wrong availment of Modvat credit of Rs. 7,68,946/- had been also discussed at length by the Commissioner in his impugned order. Shri Sunder Lal, Supervisor of the appellants firm, also admitted that from the weighment book, pages 1 to 87 were torn out after clearing the goods to the various parties. We do not find sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of the learned Commissioner, prima facie, at this stage. 6. The contention of the learned counsel that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in this show cause notice when it was not invoked in the earlier show cause notice being barred by the principles of constructive res judicata also cannot be accept ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar to try the same issue once over, equally applies to the quasi-judicial proceedings of the Tribunals other than the Civil Courts. But the same is not of much avail to the appellants in the instant case. 8. Regarding financial hardship of the appellants, we have gone through the provisional balance sheet ending 31-1-2002 and find that the turnover of the appellants was more than two crores. 9. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the issue involved, and looking into the financial hardship as pleaded by them, the appellants are directed to make pre-deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs (rupees five lakhs only) on or before 2-7-2002. On making this deposit, the requirement to pre-deposit the balance duty amount and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
