2006 (3) TMI 596

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te, for the Appellant. Shri S.S. Bhagat, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranajan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The appellants have purchased the inputs from M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd, Jamshedpur, during the period from April 1995 to February 2000 and on the basis of invoices issued by M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd., they have availed Modvat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the ld. advocate for the appellants that the amount already paid by M/s. Jaiswal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. includes the duty amount in respect of inputs received by the appellants. 3. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Commissioner has confirmed the duty demand by denying the credit to the appellants on the ground that M/s. Jaiswal Engrs. had actually not paid duty on the goods cl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e case of IDL Chemicals Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneshwar - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 710 (Trib.), the demand should be held as time-barred since the Show Cause Notice was issued only on 4-5-2001 beyond the normal period of limitation and the Adjudicating Commissioner himself has held that the appellants were not a party to the fraud. The ld. counsel also advances a second alternative ground that the impugned noti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 193 Tri]. 5. The ld. SDR appearing for the Department supports the duty demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Commissioner. He also states that at the material time, the documents on which of credit was taken, the duty was not paid by (he supplier. Since the credit was taken on fraudulent invoices, he states, the extended period would apply. He also states that Rule 57-I was substituted by....