9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the credit was sent by them vide their letter dated 3-4-2001 stating that the goods have been re-imported on paying CVD duty amounting to Rs. 1,04,571/- of which they have availed the modvat credit and re-imported goods have been issued to the production department for manufacture after which they were cleared for local consumption on payment of excise duty as well as for export. On receipt of this letter they were issued a show cause notice on 4-4-2001 stating that the appellants have in their letter failed to produce any evidence to show that the said goods were subjected to process amounting to manufacture in the factory and have also failed to produce invoice under which the said fabrics have been cleared for processing. From this it a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f may not be said that the re-imported goods were used in or in relation to the manufacture of final product and accordingly credit was inadmissible. 3. The learned advocate for the appellant submits that in this case the show cause notice was issued under the provisions of Rule 57-I without invoking Section 11A and the time limit under Rule 57-I is six months only and once the extended period has not been invoked and the further since there are no allegation of suppression or wilful misstatement on their part, the extended period cannot be made applicable even if the show cause notice has been considered to have been issued under Section 11A. In the absence of any allegation of any suppression of fact the extended period cannot be invoke ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r for export without payment of duty. Since they have informed as late as 3-4-2001 i.e. almost after 1 year of the date of receipt, it was incumbent on them to state the specific process which was carried on the re-exported goods which they have intimated earlier. In the absence of the same credit cannot be extended unless it is proved beyond doubt that the re-imported goods were subjected to some process within the factory. 5. I have considered the submissions. On limitation I find that the show cause notice has been issued after one year of the date of receipt of the goods and is therefore clearly time barred. As extended period has not been invoked even though it is presumed that since the show cause notice was issued with approval of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
