9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellants filed RT-12 return for the months of December, 1999 and on scrutiny of the same it was observed that appellant had availed a credit of Rs. 1, 31, 927/- (Rupees One lakhThirty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven only) in PLA R Rs. 36,265/- (Rupees Thirty Six Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Five only) in RG-23A Part II. On being asked to produce the proper document on which credit has been availed, the appellants revealed that the credit has been taken on the strength of supplementary invoices No. 31 to 48 of dated 30 TH November, 1999 issued by appellant to themselves. The lower authorities issued show cause notice proposing to demand the said credit wrongly availed by the appellant and impose penalty. The adjudicating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e final product in the DGS D rate contract. If that be so, the appellant should have followed the proper procedure of filing the refund claim with the lower authorities. I find from the record that the appellant was a regular manufacturer, and was registered with the Central Excise Department, surely should have been aware that for availing credit of an amount in PLA, the amount has to be deposited with the Government Treasury under TR-6 Challan. No credit in PLA can be availed without a TR-6 Challan as laid down in the provisions of Rule 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. When the provisions are very clear as regards the credit entry to be made in PLA, the appellants contention that the refund is due to them, hence availment of credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice the previous show cause notice stands superceded. I find no infirmity in the action of the Asstt. Commissioner in as much as the power to issue show cause notice includes the power to amend or delete or withdraw it. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore has taken the same view in the case of Ralectronics Ltd. Vs. Asstt. Commissioners Central Excise - 1993 (67) ELT 810 (Kar.), "The argument that the Central Excise Officer has become functus officio because the show cause notice contain the grounds stated in the proviso to Sub Sec. (1) of Sec. 11A of the Act does not hold water because within a period of 6 months from the relevant date no levy or no payment or short levy or short payment or erroneous refund of duty of excise, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
