2005 (2) TMI 666

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f gate-passes. The gate passes referred to above were endorsed by Traders and the Certificates were issued by the Central Excise Officers, who verified the original duty paying documents. Both these documents are valid documents for the purpose of taking credit. 2. It is alleged that the appellant availed credit on the strength of endorsed gate passes, which were so endorsed on the strength of forged gate passes and availed of credit on the basis of certificates issued on the basis of fake/forged documents. During the investigation statements of the officials of the appellant company and that of the traders from whom inputs were received, were recorded. On the basis of these investigations it was alleged that credit of Rs. 8,86,162.26....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....scharged and that the order of the Commissioner ignores the fact that the appellant followed every rule in the book while availing of credit. 5. The ld Advocate relied on the following case law - IDL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 710 (Tri.) wherein the Tribunal held that extended period of limitation is not available since there is no collusion between the supplier of the inputs and the appellants before them. The Tribunal laid emphasis on the fact that payment for the inputs was made by cheque as in the present case. He relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dwarkadas Velji Talpatriwala v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara - 2002 (150) E.L.T. 769 (Tri.) wherein ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t had knowledge of the fake nature of particular transaction in a tax matter. He argued that extended period of limitation is invokable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have perused the records and considered the rival submissions. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the inputs received in the appellant's factory were not covered by the endorsed gate passes and certificates. In fact this finding is not even denied by the appellant. What is however, disputed is that the appellant had knowledge of that fact. If he had no such knowledge extended period of limitation does not come into play. The period in dispute is 1991-92 and the show cause notice was issued somewhere in 1995. However, no finding on this issu....