1998 (12) TMI 211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hatterjee, ld. Consultant submitted that the appellants were new in the manufacturing line and in February, 1994, first RT 12 return was filed by them. He submitted that at that time they sought the help of their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities and produced the invoices for defacing who advised them the same should be produced on a later date which would be fixed and intimated to the appellants. On not receiving any further intimation from their jurisdictional Central Excise authorities, the appellants vide their letter dated 1-7-1994 addressed to the Superintendent requested him to fix a date to make a visit to their factory for defacing the duty paying documents pertaining to Modvat credit which has been kept pending by him sinc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat it is the statutory duty of the appellants in terms of the provisions of Rule 57G(4) to annex all the invoices along with their RT 12 returns. As the appellants have failed to do so, the imposition of penalty by the authorities below was justified. He submits that in a number of cases where the demands have been held to be time barred on account of such lapses by the assessees, imposition of penalty has been upheld by the Tribunal and other judicial authorities. He submits that there is no evidence that these letters dated 1-7-1994 and 24-9-1994 were received by the department. 4. I have considered the submissions made from both sides. I do not agree with the submission made by the ld. SDR about the receipt of letters dated 1-7-....