1998 (9) TMI 199

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e, demands were raised by show cause notice for an amount of Rs. 1,32,016.75 under Rule 57-I of C.E. Rules has also been confirmed. The period in question is 8-4-1988 to 11-12-1992. It is the contention of the appellants that the demands are barred by time and that there has been no allegation of suppression, mis-declaration and ingredients to proviso to Rule 11(1) of the C. E. Act not been invoked. It is the contention of the appellants that even under Rule 57-I of the C.E. Rules, the demands have to be restricted only to six months. It is stated that they had filed Modvat credit declaration under 57G and also simultaneously they had declared the additional inputs received by them in the factory under 57H which is a transistional provision....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1-12-1992 and the same has been issued under Rule 57-I of C.E. Rules. In terms of these rules, demands can be raised only for 6 months and in the event of any grounds available under proviso to Section 11A larger period is invokable provided those grounds have been alleged; in the show cause notice. Admittedly in the present case no such grounds have been alleged and the proceedings have also not been conducted by the Commissioner in terms of proviso to Rule 11A. For extending any larger period show cause notice has to be issued only by Commissioner and Adjudicated by him. In the present case, the show cause notice has been issued by the Assistant Collector. In the said show cause notice, it is contended that the applications filed under Ru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the amounts, then I am of the considered opinion that the said amounts should be barred by time. I am also of the opinion that in case they have already taken these amounts into their credit within 6 months from the filing of the declaration, then such availment is in order. It is the contention of the appellants that they are not in a position to identify the inputs before hand for inclusion in the declaration filed under 57G and that such inputs can for the purpose of manufacture have immediately filed declaration under 57G and also filed declaration under 57H and hence such filing of declarations under both the rules simultaneously is permissible as the Rule 57H itself contemplates for availing of credit of duty paid on inputs received....