9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 1053X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... turer of Mild Steel Ingots (MS Ingots), steel runners etc. The period involved is June, 1991 to January, 1994 when the MODVAT Scheme was in force. The appellants availed credit of duty paid on inputs to the tune of Rs. 60,19,427/- on the strength of carbon copies of challans issued by TISCO at Calcutta to another dealer at Calcutta, who subsequently endorsed the same to appellant. The department disallowed the MODVAT credit and also imposed penalty. After several rounds of litigation the matter has been remanded by the Hon'ble High Court. 3. The learned Counsel Shri V.J. Shankaram appearing for the appellant argued both on merits and on the issue of limitation. The objection of the department is that the challans were not issued by TIS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therefore cannot be considered as challans issued by TISCO. Though the title of the challans show as TATA IRON and STEEL COMPANY LIMITED, STOCK YARD SIDING NO: etc, these are seen signed by consignment agent. Again, though the documents were defaced by the Range Superintendent it cannot be said that the department was put to notice of the fact that the challans were signed by the consignment agent. That the appellant is thus guilty of suppression of facts and the extended period has been rightly invoked. 6. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 7. The appellant purchased scraps (inputs) from dealers who in turn purchased it from TISCO yard under delivery challan duly signed by the consignment agent of TISCO and counter signe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustenance from the decision of Tribunal in M/s Nirma Ltd Vs CCE, Ahmedabad Final Order No. A/884/2005WZB/C-IV dated 06.07.2005 in appeal no. E/1361/2006-Mum. The relevant portion is reproduced as below: Show Cause Notice was issued on 22-12-99 i.e. admittedly after the normal period of limitation. It is seen that the entire basis for creating the demand against the appellants is the invoice in question, which undisputedly was before the authorities when the same was defaced and the appellants were allowed to take the credit. What has been made objectionable in the year 99, could have been taken note of by the authorities in the year 97 itself. As such I am of the view that the demand in question is hopelessly barred by limitation and on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
