TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 185
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efly is it is admitted that the assessee Hindus than Heavy Chemicals Limited availed of Modvat credit on the items known as capital goods as mentioned in the notification issued by the authority Subsequent thereto the said notification was amended and altered the position and under the said notification hydrogen gas cylinders were not declared as the capital goods which would be evident from the said Notification No 14/96-C.E. (N.T.), dated 23-7-1996. The appellant in terms of the rules duly filed the returns that is as per rule framed under the 1944 Act and the returns were duly filed by them and tried to avail credit to the tune of Rs. 18,20,169/- on such items describing the said items as capital goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuary 1999, thereby the service of such show cause notice would have been completed by the authorities on or before July or August 1999 and since there is no question of any misstatement or fraud or concealment by the petitioner/appellant the authority cannot get the benefit to the extent the steps so to be taken by them for a period of five years from the date of submission of the returns so filed by the appellant Mr. Ghosh relied upon the decision reported in 2003 (158) E.L.T. 403 (S.C.) = (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 48 (ITW Signode Ind Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise) and he drew our attention to paragraph 64 of the said decision which is set out hereunder: "64. It is not in dispute that in terms of Section 11-A, a show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." 3. Therefore, according to him the extension should be only invocation (sic) if there is a positive act of fraud etc. on the part of the assessee is found. 4. He further relied on 2004 (167) E.L.T. 491 (S.C.) = AIR 2004 S.C. 3326 (Ugam Chand Bhandari, Appellant v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras, Respondent), paragraph 8 at page 3328, which is also reproduced hereunder: "In so far as the contention raised by the appellants whether the extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act could be invoked in the present cases is concerned, what is to be see is whether there was no deliberate intention on the part of the appellants to have suppressed any material Information. The plea taken by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing the manufacturing process. In the manufacturing process it has been clearly mentioned that "rayon grade wood pulp" was being used. Thus, the material used was disclosed by the party. It is on the basis of use of this material that the Collector (Appeals) holds that the product would be classifiable under Tariff Item No. 48.18. Thus, all necessary material was available to the Department. There is no new material which has been discovered by the Department. In these circumstances, in our view, the adjudicating order as well as the order of CEGAT holding that the extended period is available cannot be sustained and are hereby set aside. The demands for duty and penalty for the extended period of limitation is therefore set aside." 6.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant to disclose the full particulars and also it was the duty of the appellants to take note of the said notification since ignorance of law is not an excuse and they perhaps cannot get out of the said fact by not disclosing the proper facts with the proper materials before the authority. He also relied upon a decision reported in 1999 (108) E.L.T. 611 S.C (Madras Petro Chem. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras) and according to him proper facts were not disclosed and Supreme Court held as follows: "10. So, we have no hesitation to hold on facts of this case in view of finding recorded by the statutory authorities concurrently, that proviso to Section 11A would be attracted, as it stood at the material time and the deman....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to be filed by him and in case he is entitled to get such relief under the said provisions of law then automatically he will get such benefit otherwise it is always the duty of the authority to call upon the said assessee to explain the position and to give an hearing that why he could not get the benefit under the said provision that has been done a and for the purpose of effecting natural justice to the parties who are coming before the authority and availing the benefit of the relief so granted under the provisions. In the instant case it appears that by way of self assessment the assessee has claimed a relief/a benefit but no notice was served on the assessee to clarify the position within the period mentioned in the Act by not doing s....