2000 (10) TMI 981

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he availability of Modvat Credit on the inputs used in the manufacture of their final products which were ultimately cleared without payment of duty under the provisions of Chapter X. He fairly concedes that the issue is covered against them by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Kirloskar Oil Engine v. CCE, reported in 1994 (74) ELT 835 (T). He, however, submits that demand is relatable to March, 1992 to March, 1994 and the show-cause notice was issued on 18.2.1997 that is beyond the period of six months from the relevant date. As such he submits that notice having been raised after six months is barred by limitation in as much as the fact of clearance of their product under Chapter X Procedure to M/s. Hindustan Insecti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttopadhyay, learned J.D.R., draws our attention to the observations made by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bolpur. As regards the invocation of the longer period of limitation, he argues that the fact of clearance of the said final product without payment of duty under Chapter X Procedure was not mentioned in the statutory declaration like C/List. He submits that C/List is a basic document and this fact by itself, will justify invocation of larger period of limitation against the appellants. This having not been done by the appellants, they cannot take the plea of limitation now. He also draws our attention to the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Upper Doab Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut reported in 1999 (65) E.C.C. 412 (T) : 1999 (8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ary, 1993 to December, 1993. Modvat Credit of Rs. 19,60,910.00 has been denied to the appellants. The said demand was raised in the relevant RT 12 returns. The Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the raising of demand in the RT-12 returns. It is the contention of the appellants that before the Appellate Order was communicated to them, they had received two show cause notices dated 18.2.1997 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise requiring them to show cause as to why Credit taken in respect of the said inputs used, in the manufacture of exempted final product, should not be disallowed and recovered. The said notices related to the period from March, 1992 to March, 1994, which included the period involved in the present appeal i.e. fr....