TMI Blog1995 (12) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his appeal is directed against the order of the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, dated 13-12-1994. 2. The appellants herein admittedly availed erroneously and wrongly MODVAT Credit in respect of the duty suffered by various inputs used in the manufacture of MS rounds which were exempted from payment of duty in terms of exemption Notification 202/88, dated 20-5-1988. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther instructions from the Supdt. Having not heard from the Supdt. the appellants suo motu reversed the credit or in other words took credit of the said amount which the appellants earlier reversed. In other words, the appellants had restored the credit reversed in the RG 23 Part II register and informed the authorities of their suo motu restoration of the credit. Immediately, the Supdt. by his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under official compulsion. It was therefore, urged that since the oral direction of the Supdt. of Central Excise and the subsequent proceedings which followed was an illegality, the appellants took suo motu credit on 7-12-1993 which cannot be questioned legally or administratively by the Supdt. of Central Excise and therefore the show cause notice issued on 11-l2-1993 under the provisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endorsement suo motu in the RG 23 Part II and the RT 12 return for August, 1990. It is well settled that there is absolutely no provision under the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under the MODVAT Scheme for the assessee to take suo motu credit as has been done in this case on 7-12-1993. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in mind the fact that initially the credit taken by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellants in taking the credit on 7-12-1993 has no warrant or basis under the provisions of law. The learned Counsel relied upon the ruling in the case of Dentifrices v. CCE, Cochin reported in 1994 (52) ECR 182 (Tribunal). This ruling is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Centra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
