9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (J) and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) S/Shri V. Laxmikumaran with R. Ravi, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri H.K. Thakur, Jt. CDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of chewing gum, toffee, candy, containing cocoa etc. which items are notified under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for payment of duty on the basis of MRP. 2. The appellants are also availing the benefit of Cenvat credit in respect of the inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The dispute in the present case relates to the credit of duty availed by the appellants in respect of 'Tattoos' on the ground that the same are not eligible for the purpose of Modvat credit inasmuch as, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 30th July, 2003. As such, a part of the demand is beyond the period of limitation of one year as provided under Section 11A of the Act. While dealing with the said plea of the appellants, the Commissioner has observed as under : "Coming to the plea of the assessee, regarding non-applicability of provisions of extended period, I find that the assessee, vide their letter dated 14-8-2002, had intimated the department that they were running sales promotion scheme. Entries in respect of 'tattoos', were however, made in RG-23A part I w.e.f. 18-10-2001 by describing the impugned tattoos as packing material. 'This was positively a misdescription. I further discover that the taking of credit on impugned tattoos was started in the RG-23A Pt.II w.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their statutory records only. As such, it cannot be said that the credit was availed with mala fide intention or there was suppression on the part of the appellants. As such, we find no justification for invoking the extended period of limitation. The demand is required to be restricted for a period of one year from the date of issuance of show cause notice. For the said purpose, we remand the matter to Commissioner for quantification of the demand within a period of one year from issuance of show cause notice. Further, inasmuch as the issue involved is about legal interpretation of the Modvat provisions and as already held that no suppression, misstatement or mala fide are attributable to the appellants, we do not find any justifiable re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
