2000 (3) TMI 411

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....& Associates, for the Appellant. Shri A.K. Chatterjee, SDR, for the Respondents. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The two applications are for re-hearing of the two appeals on the ground that although the order disposing of the appeal has been dictated in court, has not been signed. 2. The advocate for the applicants cites the Supreme court judgment in Vinod Kumar Singh ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... judgment in CCE v. Safari Industries - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 9 and come to the conclusion that where demand for duty is made within six months, the fact that any of the factors satisfied in the proviso under section 11A of the Act for invoking the extended period has been cited, is no ground to say that it is the Collector who should have signed the notice. He says that the Supreme Court in its later ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....extended period has necessarily to be issued by the Collector, the Supreme Court judgment would not be relevant. However in the course of hearing of the application, one of the points that came to our mind was that a notice for recovery of money credit would have to be issued under rule 57P, and money credit cannot be recovered by invoking either section 11A or rule 57-I. No doubt this argument wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ule 57-I and section 11A, neither of which had application to the facts of this case. Therefore, the order confirming the proposal in the notice cannot be maintained. 7. We do not find it possible to accept the answer of the departmental representative that money credit taken under rule 57K can be recovered by invoking rule 57-I. Rule 57-I provides for recovery of modvat credit wrongly tak....