9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (10) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ves around the issue as to whether the appellant were required to debit back the same amount of Modvat credit originally taken by them on the inputs when the inputs were subsequently cleared by them as such. The duty of Rs. 23,76,352/- has been confirmed against the appellant on the ground that they have cleared the inputs subsequently, at a lower value and thus debiting lower duty, as they had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt and there was no suppression, fraud or wilful misstatement on the part of the appellant, so as to justify the Revenue's action of invoking the longer period of limitations. In support of the above submissions, he referred to the various decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of CEGAT. 2. Countering the arguments, Shri S. Singhal (JDR) submits that the law on this point was settled as f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e plea of demand being barred by limitation was also raised before the Commissioner, who has not accepted the same by observing that in the scheme of self assessment, it is the responsibility of the assessee to determine the correct amount of duty and to pay the same before the goods are cleared. It is difficult to believe that a well established company is not aware of the Rule 57F(3)(a). We do n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
