9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (12) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also withdrawing the facility of taking MODVAT with immediate effect. 3. Shri Mathur submitted that all the necessary facts for availing MODVAT credit in terms of Rule 57A read along with Rules 57F, 57G, of Central Excise Rules, 1944 and other relevant rules on the subject were disclosed to the department and, therefore, the Respondent No. 2 was in error in applying the 5 years time period for raising demand against the petition under proviso to Rule 57(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In support of his contention Shri Mathur relied on M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Union of India -1991 (53) E.L.T. 278; Collector of Central Excise v. Chembhar Drugs Liniments -1989 (40) E.L.T. 276 (SC) and Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliberately to avail MODVAT credit otherwise not admissible, removal of items which are not inputs for the final product and which has not been used in or in relation to manufacture of final product of Cephalzin and Cephadroxil, not filing the requisite declaration in terms of Notification No. 214/86, dated 1-3-1986, wilfully availing of the credit amounting to Rs. 73,38,597.50 in respect of items not declared, suppression of facts in respect of certain items and failing to maintain proper account. Adjudication order dated 10-6-1991 passed by the Respondent No. 2 after reciting facts and contentions of the petitioner and their Advocates, in discussion and findings inter alia found that the noticee petitioner had availed credit of inputs whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statutory authority to grant relief, fundamental rights having been infringed which are all lacking in this case, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy merely because the statutory remedy is onerous. [Collector of Customs v. Bava (AIR 1968 SC 13) relied on.] The decision cited by Shri Neema set out above would support the view taken by us. 7. As a result admission of petition is declined. It is, however, ordered that if the petitioner presents an appeal before CEGAT, New Delhi by 15-1-1992 the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law. Further the stay order dated 13-7-1991 granted by this court will remain in force till 15-1-1992 by which date th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
