9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies Ltd. have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner. The learned Commissioner in the impugned order had held that invocation of larger period in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 read with Rule 57U(6)/57AH of Central Excise Rules, 1944 is justified. Learned Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs. 21,99,959/-. He also imposed an equal amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ince these goods were not owned by the appellants they were not entitled to take credit under Rule 57Q on the goods. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants asking them to explain as to why Modvat credit should not be denied to them after invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) and why penalty should not be imposed. In reply to the Show-cause Notice the appellants submitted that M/s. Hyund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in the case of Vimla Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., New Delhi reported in 1997 (20) RLT 753. In regard to extending period of demand beyond six months the appellants cited and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Chemphar Drugs Liniments reported in 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276, in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1989 (43) E.L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard to invocation of the larger period beyond six months we note that the appellants had complied with all the formalities for the purpose of taking Modvat credit on the goods received by them from M/s. Hyundai Motors India Ltd. Since there was no suppression, therefore, longer period beyond six months was not available to the Department for demanding duty. 7. Thus both on merits and limitation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
