9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sentative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri J.M.K. Sekhar, Sr. Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following Order : 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, the appellant filed a revision application before the Government of India which stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of Section 35P of the Act. 4. The brief facts of the case are :- Madras Industrial Linings Ltd., Madras (appellant herein) brought into their licensed factory items such as tubes, vessels and tanks, on which duty had been paid at the appropriate rates for the purpose of rubber lining and eventual clearance after payment of duty on the rubber linings; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t he referred to the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Jay Engineering Works Ltd., Hyderabad v. Government of India reported in 1979 E.L.T. (J 307). In para 10 of that judgment their Lordships of the Andhra Pradesh High Court have held that in somewhat similar circumstances provisions of Rule 56A(3) would not be applicable. He next referred to the decision of this Tribunal in Indian Aluminium Company Ltd., Kalamassery v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin Appeal No. ED(T)(MAS) 20/80 dated 6-7-83 in which it has been held that where proforma credit has been availed of due to error etc. notice had to be issued within the period specified (6 months, extendable to five years under specified circumstances) as warranted in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand. We would therefore be inclined to hold that even the provisions of Rule 56A(5) would not be applicable. However, it cannot be that failure on the part of the assessee to comply with the provisions of law would enable him to take the benefit of such failure. We would be inclined to hold that in the circumstances such as the present one in the absence of proper intimation within time to the department taking of credit was not authorised, and the Department is justified in common law to ask for that amount back. 9. However, we take note of the provisions of the Trade Notice No. 191/84 of December 1984 issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, according to which late filing of D-3 intimation could be condoned. The nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
