9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 981X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l products which were ultimately cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Chapter X. He fairly concedes that the issue is covered against them by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engine v. CCE, reported in 1994 (74) ELT 835 (T). He, however, submits that demand is relatable to March, 1992 to March, 1994 and the show-cause notice was issued on 18.2.1997 that is beyond the period of six months from the relevant date. As such he submits that notice having been raised after six months is barred by limitation in as much as the fact of clearance of their product under Chapter X Procedure to M/s. Hindustan Insecticides Ltd. was within the knowledge of the Department. Elaborating his argument, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issioner of Central Excise, Bolpur. As regards the invocation of the longer period of limitation, he argues that the fact of clearance of the said final product without payment of duty under Chapter X Procedure was not mentioned in the statutory declaration like C/List. He submits that C/List is a basic document and this fact by itself, will justify invocation of larger period of limitation against the appellants. This having not been done by the appellants, they cannot take the plea of limitation now. He also draws our attention to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Upper Doab Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1999 (65) E.C.C. 412 (T) : 1999 (83) ECR 384 (T) wherein it has been held-- Mention of quantity purchased and used in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the appellants. The said demand was raised in the relevant RT 12 returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the raising of demand in the RT-12 returns. It is the contention of the appellants that before the Appellate Order was communicated to them, they had received two show cause notices dated 18.2.1997 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise requiring them to show cause as to why Credit taken in respect of the said inputs used, in the manufacture of exempted final product, should not be disallowed and recovered. The said notices related to the period from March, 1992 to March, 1994, which included the period involved in the present appeal i.e. from January, 1993 to December, 1993. The subsequently issued show cause notices w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis for the appellants to entertain the bona fide reasonable belief that the Modvat Credit would still be available to the manufacturer in case the final product is cleared under Chapter X Procedure. In any case, the other two judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate are to the effect that the date of taking of the Credit is the relevant date for the purposes of limitation under the revisions of Rule 57I, which cannot be extended even in case of provisional assessment. Accordingly, we hold that the demands of duties involved in the present appeals are barred by limitation. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential reliefs to the appellants. (Pronounced in the Court). - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
