1996 (9) TMI 247

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t. [Order]. - This appeal of the Department is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 123/Addl. Collr. dated 16-11-1992 of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Bombay-III dropping the proceedings initiated in the Show Cause Notice dated 17-12-1986 for recovery of Rs. 21,150/- from the Respondents for wrong utilisation of the credit availed of between 15-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. The Show....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....was placed before the Additional Collector for adjudication. He has pleaded that no period of limitation was prescribed for raising demand under Rule 57-I of the Rules at that relevant time, the amendment thereof is on 6-10-1988. Referring to the Gujarat High Court judgment in Torrent Laboratories Ltd. v. Union of India - 1991 (51) E.L.T. 25 (Guj.), the ld. DR has pleaded that Modvat Scheme being ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ix months. It is also his submission that this Bench and other Benches of the Tribunal have been consistently holding that Rules are always supplementary to the statutory provisions and for raising demand even under the pre-amended Rule 57-I, the period prescribed was applicable. He refers to the latest decision of the Tribunal in Brakes India Ltd. v. Collector - 1996 (15) RLT 68 (CEGAT-SRB) and f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under Rule 57-I. The basic fundamental of law is that the Rules framed under the statute are always supplementary to the statutory provisions and unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Sections are to be read as applicable. Rule 57-I at the relevant time, did not provide any time limit, but the provisions of the statute had made such a provision and hence, the time provided in ....