1995 (5) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gh subsequently the duty was charged in respect of these goods earlier allowed free of duty. As seen from the records the appellants had taken Modvat credit on the inputs Aluminium Ingots and had used them for the manufacture of Aluminium Castings, the finished notified goods cleared by the appellants. The price list exempting Aluminium Castings from payment of duty was also approved. The appellants since they were using the inputs namely Aluminium Ingots for the manufacture of Aluminium Castings cleared free of duty, expunged the credit relating to the inputs contained in these castings. Subsequently, however, these castings were held by the learned lower authority to be assessable under Chapter Headings 84, 85, 86, 87 and 90 and in respec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not cover a contingency of the type in this case. 4. I have considered the pleas made by both the sides. The reading of the orders of the learned lower authorities shows that the appellants' eligibility to take Modvat credit in respect of Aluminium Ingots is not in question. The appellants, based on the classification list approved, reversed the Modvat credit relatable to the quantum of inputs contained in Aluminium Castings cleared without payment of duty. After this was done, the authorities, however, have chosen to re-assess the castings earlier cleared free of duty under Chapter Headings 84, 85, 86, 87, & 90 and have held them to be not eligible for clearance on `nil' rate of duty under sub-heading 7616.90 read with Notificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to claim the restoration of the Modvat credit earlier expunged within a period of 6 months from the payment of duty in respect of the castings. We have held in a number of cases where for any particular contingency the period of limitation is not provided, the limitation of 6 months can be applied as this period can be considered as a reasonable period taking into consideration the Scheme of the Central Excise Act and Rules following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals wherein it has been held as under : "Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is not reasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for t....