TMI Blog1991 (11) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged in the manufacture of Monoblock prestressed concrete sleepers . They were availing the benefit of credit of duty on inputs used in the manufacture of the aforesaid product under Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979. In the course of their checks, they carried out the physical check of the stock lying in the bonded store room and noticed 2268 pieces of concrete sleepers lying in fully manufactured condition in the bonded store room, but were found to be unaccounted for in the statutory registers maintained by the factory. The aforesaid quantity of concrete sleepers were seized, which were subsequently handed over to the appellants for safe custody under a supratnama. 3. The officers, on scrutiny of RG 23 Part II, maintained by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid order. 4. Shri Willingdon Christian the ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellants pleaded as below: (i) The show cause notice dated 10-6-1988 covering the period 3-3-1986 to 25-6-1986 is fully time barred. The extended period cannot be ...... in this case; because the inputs were received under D-3 declaration and they had also filed the extracts of relevant RG 23, indicating the availment of the credit under Notification 201/79, along with the relevant RT 12 returns. Hence the allegation of suppression as contained in the show cause notice, is not sustainable. In this context, he made several citations. (ii) On the question of eligibility of credit under Notification 201/79 read in the context of sub-rule (8) of Rule 56-A, h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are not tested, cannot be shown as excisable goods in the RG-1. In view of this letter, which was not objected to by the department, they had not entered the rejected sleepers in the RG-1 Register. He therefore pleaded that no mala fides can be attributed warranting confiscation of the sleepers and also imposition of penalty. 5. As against the aforesaid arguments, the arguments of the ld. SDR, Shri Mondal can be summed up as below : (i) The plea of time bar is not sustainable. Even at the time of assessment of RT 12 returns, it has been pointed out by the assessing officer that credit under Notification 201/79 cannot be taken after the rescinding of the notification. These orders, being assessment orders could be appealed against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch an order from the appropriate officer. Thus he sought to justify the demand on merits. (iii) Though panchnama states that the concrete sleeper were rejected, they are found to be in fully manufactured condition lying in the bonded store room. They should have accounted for in the RG-1 Register and shown it as rejected. They cannot just keep the fully excisable goods lying in the store room without accountal in the RG-1 Register. Moreover the letter dated 9-4-1983 said to have been addressed to the Range Supdt. does not show any acknowledgement of receipt and hence he is not in a position to say whether this was within the knowledge of the department. 6. After hearing both the sides, we first propose to consider the demand for recover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed if the credit of duty was allowable in respect of such material, component parts or finished product under this rule immediately before the commencement of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986) . (Emphasis supplied). From the above, it is clear that notwithstanding, anything contained elsewhere in Rule 56A, where the credit of duty was allowable in respect of any input under Rule 56A that credit of duty shall be allowed. In this case, since the input and final product were classifiable under TI 68 and this item has been notified under Rule 56A, credit of duty on inputs was allowable under Rule 56A prior to 1-3-1986. The requirement of getting the permission, on an application ..... specified elsewhere in Rule 56A, but s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come with the plea that vide their letter dated 9-4-1983, they had intimated to the department that they would make the entry in RG-1 after the testing was done by the Railways as the sleepers manufactured by them were supplied only to the Indian Railways and their product was approved only after testing. Though, for want of specific instructions from the department, Mr. Mondal the Ld SDR was not in a position to either confirm or deny the receipt of such a letter by the department, even giving concession to the appellants in that regards, the sleepers ought not to have found their place in the BSR, where storage is permissible only after entry in the statutory records. Going by the version of the appellants that they were the rejected good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
