TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (7) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or their product "Disposable Cups" falling under Chapter Sub Heading No. 3923.90 claiming Nil rate of duty as provided at Sr. No. 37 of the table annexed to the Notification No. 14/92-C.E., dated 1-3-92. The exemption is subject to the condition that such disposable cups are made out of goods falling under Heading No. 39.01 to 39.15 of the Schedule to the CETA, '85 (5 of 1986) on which the duty of Excise leviable thereon under the Central Excise & Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the duty of Customs leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as the case may be, has already been paid and no credit of such duty is availed of under Rule 57A of the CER, 1944, or such disposable cups are produced out of Scrap of plastic. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....94. 4. Heard both sides. Learned advocate on behalf of the applicant submits that the show cause notice issued in 1997 is clearly time barred, As regards second period for Jan.'95 to Mar.'95, he submits that they had produced a Chartered Accountant's certificate, certifying that they had reversed the credit of duty paid on inputs on a proportionate basis on a daily basis in respect of disposable cups and detailed statements were also enclosed. He has cited several judgments in support of his contention that once the credit is reversed, the appellants are eligible for exemption. As regards show cause notice issued for the period Apr.'92 to Feb.'94 on 22-5-97, he states that it is clearly time barred. During the relevant period, the Central ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ime. The ground taken in the show cause notice for raising the demand is that the Modvat credit has been taken on the inputs used in the manufacture of disposable cups and therefore, the exemption under relevant notification could not be availed. It is noticed that the appellant had submitted a certificate from Chartered Accountant which shows that on a day to day basis, the appellants were reversing the credit based on the quantity cleared. The objection of the department is that the reversal should have been made before the clearance of the goods and one time debit on a daily basis does not fulfill the condition of the notification. What the Revenue is saying is that instead of making one entry in the register, the appellants should have ....