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

1997 (10) TMI 367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly Rs. 18,14,462.35 and Rs. 6,63,880.50 was confirmed. 2. Appearing for the appellants Shri R. Nambirajan, learned Advocate submitted that the impugned order had disposed of two show cause notices, one dated 3-5-88 demanding a duty of Rs. 6,63,880.50 for the period October, 1987 to March, 1988 and a second show cause notice, dated 25-4-88 demanding a duty of Rs. 18,14,462.35 for the period between March, 1986 and September, 1987. 3. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are : 3.1 Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Motor Vehicles falling under Chapter 87 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were availing the benefit of Modvat credit of the duty paid on the inputs used in the manufacture of motor vehicles. During t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng that a proposal to reverse the Modvat credit under Rule 57-I cannot be treated as recovery of duty short levied, short paid or erroneously refunded and therefore, no limitation would apply. Further, he also held that the Supdt. while assessing the RT-12 returns had specifically remarked that the assessment was provisional. On merits, the A.C. further held that Jack Assembly was not required as an input for the manufacture of motor vehicles and hence, cannot be treated as an input used in or in relation to the manufacture of motor vehicles. 3.3 The Collector (Appeals), by his order dated 20-9-89 set aside the order-in-original passed by the A.C. for re-examination of the issue relating to finalisation of provisional assessment. 3.4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... iod prior to 6-10-88, the time limit prescribed under Section 11A would govern the show cause notices issued under Rule 57-I as it stood prior to 6-10-88. 4.2 As regards the question of provisional assessment, learned counsel contended that for purposes of Section 11A, the relevant date has been clearly provided for in sub-section (3)(ii)(b) of that Section. In terms of Rule 9B dealing with provisional assessment, the proper officer may, either on the written request made by the assessee or on his own accord, direct that the duty leviable on the goods shall, pending the production of such documents or furnishing of such information or completion of any test or enquiry referred to in sub-rule (1) be assessed provisionally. In any other cas .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the proper officer had not completed assessment under Rule 173-I cannot by itself be deemed to mean that the assessments were provisional. An incomplete assessment under Rule 173-I is not a provisional assessment. 5. Defending the impugned order, the learned DR referred to the order and drew attention to the observations made therein stating that in the order-in-appeal, dated 12-10-89, the appellants themselves had admitted that Jack was not an input. The said point has, therefore, already been decided against the appellants and therefore, the appellants could not re-agitate the matter. As regards the question of provisional assessment, he pointed out that during the period in dispute, Rule 57-I contained no time limit for dis-allowing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... bserve that this Tribunal had in the case of Bajaj Auto Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Pune and Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Aurangabad [1996 (88) E.L.T. 355 (T) = 1997 (18) RLT 141 (CEGAT - NB)] held that Jack Assemblies are entitled to avail Modvat credit in respect of excise duty paid on such goods during the period 1988 to 21-10-91 by virtue of CBEC s instructions. Following the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto Limited (supra), we hold that Jack Assemblies are eligible for Modvat credit under Rule 57A. 8. As regards the question of provisional assessment and time bar, we observe that the Tribunal in its order in the case of J.K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Ltd. v. CCE [19 .....

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