9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (3) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... [Order per : Chittaranajan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants have purchased the inputs from M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Jamshedpur, during the period from April 1995 to February 2000 and on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd., they have availed Modvat credit of Rs. 32,61,525 - (Rupees Thirty-two Lakhs Sixty-one Thousand Five H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. includes the duty amount in respect of inputs received by the appellants. 3. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand by denying the credit to the appellants on the ground that M/s. Jaiswal Engrs. had actually not paid duty on the goods cleared under the cover of the duplicate/fake invoices and that they had not ensured ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and should be held as time-barred since the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 4-5-2001 beyond the normal period of limitation and the Adjudicating Commissioner himself has held that the appellants were not a party to the fraud. The ld. counsel also advances a second alternative ground that the impugned notice was issued under Rule 57-I(1) which was not in force at the time of issue of Show Caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material time, the documents on which of credit was taken, the duty was not paid by (he supplier. Since the credit was taken on fraudulent invoices, he states, the extended period would apply. He also states that Rule 57-I was substituted by another rule and hence action can be validly taken under the substituted Rule. He also cites the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
