2002 (4) TMI 782

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d that the Modvat credit has been wrongly disallowed to the appellants and that there is also no evidence to substantiate the charge of clandestine removal of the goods without payment of duty by the appellants and that no extended period could be invoked, especially when it was not so invoked in the first show cause notice. The availability of the extended period of limitation, in fact, will be barred by the principles of constructive res judicata which applies to the cases falling under Central Excise Act as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Amma v. Narayanan Nair, 1995 (77) E.L.T. 785 (S.C.). Besides this, the appellants are also facing financial hardship on account of losses as is clear from the copy of the bal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e wrong availment of Modvat credit of Rs. 7,68,946/- had been also discussed at length by the Commissioner in his impugned order. Shri Sunder Lal, Supervisor of the appellants' firm, also admitted that from the weighment book, pages 1 to 87 were torn out after clearing the goods to the various parties. We do not find sufficient ground to disagree with the findings of the learned Commissioner, prima facie, at this stage. 6.  The contention of the learned counsel that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in this show cause notice when it was not invoked in the earlier show cause notice being barred by the principles of constructive res judicata also cannot be accepted, at this stage. The question, whether the extended ....