1994 (6) TMI 70

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tated that Rule 57E is similar to para-3 of Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979 where also there was no mention of time-limit. In such a case involving the said provision, the Tribunal had held that if the Department had to raise a demand it has to be governed by substantive provisions of limitation for raising such demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. That was in Bakesman's Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 518. He also cited the decisions of the Tribunal reported in Indo National Ltd. v. Collector, 1989 (41) E.L.T. 422 and Guest Keen Williams Ltd. v. Collector 1990 (47) E.L.T. 141 and submitted that even if refund was paid to the manufacturer of cement it was not recoverable from them und .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ter the Department came to know that the manufacturers of the inputs had received refund of duty. The appellants had not intimated the Department about the same and had withheld the information. Rule  57E  provides  for  such  refund  of  duty  to  be  reflected  in  the  Modvat Credit and consequential variation thereof. He pleaded that the appeal be dismissed. 3. We have considered the submissions. The learned Counsel has relied upon the Tribunal decision in Bakesman Home Products for his contention that time-limit will apply. In addition, we find that there is another Tribunal decision in Arvind Detergents Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1987 (10) ECR .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Modvat admissible. Since the grant of refund will be the  cause  of  action  to  be  taken  under  Section  57E,  the  date  of  taking Credit may not be the appropriate date relevant for starting the period of limitation. The grant of refund may or may not be known to the Modvat-user and their non-intimation of this fact may not be an act of suppression or wilful misstatement for attracting the extended period of five years. 4. We find that this very issue of applicability of time-bar for issue of notice of demand in cases where amount of Credit taken requires to be varied corresponding to the variation of the duty itself, has been raised before the Honourable Supre .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X