9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 152X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spectively. Vide his impugned order Commissioner has also ordered reversal of Modvat Credit of Rs. 1.55 lakhs, Rs. 3.88 lakhs and Rs. 13.63 lakhs on GSP, GIP and Metalloys respectively. Penalty of Rs. 1.05 lakhs, Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 15,000 has been imposed on each of them. 2. After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri Vipin Jain and Vishal Agarwal Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri Vimlesh Kumar ld. SDR for the Revenue, we find the said demands have been confirmed on various grounds. Ld. Advocate for the appellant has placed on record written submission dealing with the various issues. We propose to deal with the various demand raised on different ground as under. 3. The period involved in the present appeal is from 1991-92 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssailed the impugned order on the point of limitation. It is their contention that copy of all the invoices in question were furnished to the department along with RT 12 returns, which fact has not been disputed. If that to be so the demand raised in 1996 for the period 1991-92 to August 1995 was barred by limitation. 4. We find lot of force in the above contention of the ld. Advocate in as much as the goods were being sold to two different classes of buyers, as has been shown to us from the various invoice produced on record, than two different assessable values in respect of the same product is acceptable. The appellant have contented that the products sold to individual/retailers was lower in quality. Even presuming that the same was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cleared the same directly from their factory without sending it back to M/s. GIP, neither GIP is entitled to credit nor GSP entitled to clear the goods without payment of duty. It has been admitted before us that M/s. GIP, after availing the credit of inputs, paid the duty on the final product also. The appellant's contention is that if at all, the same is the procedural lapse and there is no revenue implication involved. This fact has also been accepted by the Commissioner that there is no revenue impact, but he has observed that the matter needs to be regularised as per the Central Excise Rule. The ld. Advocate had submitted that if GSP is required to pay duty, he would become entitle to the Modvat credit and the duty paid by M/s. GIP i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove allegation and the officers having jurisdiction over the factory of GSP cannot question the clearance of duty paid inputs and documents issued by M/s. Metalloy as held in the case of Owens Bilt Ltd. v C.C. - 1998 (101) E.L.T. 642 (Tri.). The demand is also been assailed on the point of limitation. We find that admittedly credit has been availed on the basis of document issued by M/s. Metalloy. As rightly argued the Commissioner cannot have jurisdiction to adjudge on the fact of issue of invoice by the input sullied. We also find the demand bared by limitation. Accordingly the same is set aside. 8. Another demand of Rs. 6,25,000/- has been confirmed against M/s. GCP on the ground that if the demands confirmed as above are taken into co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
