9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ession/ mis-declaration or fraud, the appellants have written a letter on 02.01.1989 to Superintendent explaining the facts and I find that there is no dispute about the correctness of the facts incorporated in the letter dated 02.01.1989 - Appeal is allowed - E/382 of 1994 - - - Dated:- 19-8-2011 - Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, J. For Appellant : Shri K.I. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent : Shri J.S. Negi, SDR Per : Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; Modvat credit was denied on the inputs Oleum on the ground that declaration was not filed as required under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The learned counsel submitted that Oleum is nothing but Sulphuric Acid in another form and Oleum and Sulphuric Acid were classifiable under the same h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd RG23 Part II and intimated to the Superintendent of Central Excise after having done so. They also submitted an endorsed copy of the Gate Pass in support of their claim for modvat credit. Credit has been denied on the ground that acid slurry was meant for unit situated in Tiraputur (Chennai) and gate pass was in their name and it was after more than eight months the appellants had entered the goods in their RG23 Part-1 and had taken credit in the RG23 Part II and there was no correspondence to show as to why the goods which were meant for Tiraputur landed in the appellant s unit at Silvassa. The claim of the appellants that but for the seizure the gate pass was endorsed in their name was not accepted. It was held that there was no proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e into in view of the fact that order in original clearly shows that the demand has been confirmed by invoking extended time limit under the proviso of sub Section 1 of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Once the extended time limit has been invoked by invoking proviso to Section 11A, the question whether the same can be invoked or not, is to be considered. The show cause notice was issued on 05.03.1993, whereas the credit was taken on 02.01.1989. Therefore, it was issued clearly beyond the time limit of six months. The question as to whether there was any suppression/ mis-declaration or fraud, the appellants have written a letter on 02.01.1989 to Superintendent explaining the facts and I find that there is no dispute about the correc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
