9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period without insisting on pre-deposit of 50% of the adjudged dues and further directing the respondents not to recover the adjudged dues during the pendency of the appeal." 2. In the writ petition the petitioner has alleged that he is engaged in the manufacturer of leaf springs coil springs falling under Chapter 73 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner was using Flat bars as inputs in the manufacture of his final products and was availing the facility of Modvat. In terms of Rule 57-F(1) the inputs in which credit has been taken may be used in or in relation to the manufacture of final products. The inputs may also be removed after intimating the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise concerned in writing for home c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oved at intermediate stage. The same were removed admittedly after payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. Hence all objections raised through show cause notice were insignificant. The Flat bar is not final products of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 30-3-1998 adjudicated the case and confirmed the demand of Rs. 4,49,680/- and further imposed penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the wrong impression that permission to clear inputs as such was granted for a specific case and not in general. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) along with the Stay-cum-Waiver application. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the Stay-cum-waiver application vide order dated 26-4-1999 served ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not declared flat bar as his final product. Without mentioning the goods in the declaration under Rule 57-G excisable goods cannot be removed on availment of credit. It was further stated that general permission for removal of intermediary goods i.e. flat bars was not permissible under the Rules and hence, illegality was committed. Under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 financial stringency is necessary to be shown for dispensing with the requirement pre-deposit. The Commissioner (Appeals) has duly considered the grounds taken in application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act and has passed the appropriate order. 5. Shri A.P. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Standing Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder. 7. The goods are said to have been removed in the month of October, 1995 whereas the notice was served on 2nd May, 1996. Under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act the notice is required to be served within a period of 6 months from the relevant date. However, proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11-A of the Act provides that in case there is mis-statement of facts or there is suppression of facts and in other circumstances mentioned in the proviso, the period of limitation shall be 5 years. The question of limitation has not been considered by any of the authorities below. It may, however, be pointed out that the petitioner does not appear to have filed any objection to the show cause notice before the authority passing the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
