TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (9) TMI 415
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and availed irregular credit of excise duty under Modvat inasmuch as for the month from August, 94 to December, 94 the party have shown the storage loss of molasses weighing 1588.95 qtls. on which they had already taken the Modvat credit under Rule 57A. The party was not entitled to Modvat credit on the input which was not used in the manufacture of final product. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide his order-in-original No. 237/95, dated 31-10-1995 confirmed the demand of Rs. 73,091.70 against the party and held that the Modvat credit was not admissible on the quantity of molasses lost during the storage before its utilization in the manufacture of final product. Being aggrieved, the party preferred appeal before the Commission....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upto 2% in view of the CBEC letter No. 261/15/82/CX.8, dated 18-7-1983. 5.  It is, in fact, the department which has erred in raising the demands. 6.  In view of the nature of molasses, there was bound to be some natural loss and the factory is also working under state excise control and regularly submits a report to them and the State Department also gives allowances for such losses. 7.  Furthermore, the period as per the show cause notice in both cases is April, 1994 to December, 1994 whereas the appeal has been filed for the period from May to December, 1994 but the prayer is for upholding the whole of the original demand in Appeal No. E/1772/95-NB. 8.  It was also their contention that first and foremost,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. DR stated that the CBEC's Circular No. 261/15/82-CX. 8 was not relevant as it was issued in the condonation of storage losses in the manufacturing factories and pertains to the period prior to introduction of Modvat scheme and therefore, was not relevant for this purpose. 15.  Ld. Counsel stated that the Asstt. Commissioner was, in any case, not even competent to adjudicate these cases in view of the board's circular dated 14-5-1992 in 1992 (60) E.L.T.- T3. However, it was his (DR's) contention that the same was not relevant as the present case is w.r.t. 57-I. 16.  Ld. DR stated that he has since received the comments from the A.C. Saharanpur and photocopies of the relevant extracts thereof are submitted herewith. 17.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abstracts for April and May 1994 which was filed along with the RT 12 returns, therefore, the department became aware of the same and the demand in respect thereof is time barred (the show cause notice was issued on 29-11-1994 but received on 14-12-1994) as evident from the stamp of receipt by the company on the copy of the show cause notice filed by the department itself. 22.  It was their submission that in the A. No. E/1772/95 the demand may be declared as partly time barred and for the period which is within time the amount may be ordered to be re-calculated. 23.  In the A. No. E/829/90 the entire demand is in time but the demand is required to be re-calculated. 24.  They would also like to point out that since t....