1999 (6) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant. None, for the Respondents. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  In Appeal No. 1729/95, amount of duty involved is Rs. 2,28,25,389.23 P and in Appeal No. 1730/95, the duty amount is Rs. 2,33,06,345.97 P. The applicants seek waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of the above amounts. The above amounts have been sought to be recovered on the ground that the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He also cites the decision in the case of Hindustan Insulating Co. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad (Final Order No. A 963/96-NB, dated 22-3-1996) in support of his submission. His next submission that the notice issued in terms of Rule 57-I is barred by limitation since it has been issued beyond a period of six months from the date of taking credit and date of taking credit is releva....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en a rule does not prescribe any period of limitation, reasonable time is to be read into the rule and he cites the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Tamil Nadu Petro Products reported in [1996 (84) E.L.T. 263 (Tribunal) = 1996 (64) ECR 424] and M.R.F. reported in [1996 (88) E.L.T. 222 (Tribunal) = 1996 (64) ECR 378] to support his contention. Regarding the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....directed to pay the entire amounts. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We find prima facie that the show cause notice proceeds on the basis that the appellants have failed to take credit in time and the order of the Assistant Collector holds that since the inputs were received during 1989-1992, credit availed in 1993 was not admissible and the credit wrongly....