TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was also imposed on the appellants. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of tractor parts. They procured a number of items for manufacture of these parts on the items procuring from outside, the appellants were availing credit of duty under Modvat scheme on the inputs. The Department alleged that during the year 1992-93, the appellants had taken Modvat credit of Rs. 1,46,788/- and cleared 12,588 nos. of tractor parts. Duty on 10,084 nos. was paid on GPI where as 2,504 nos. were cleared without payment of duty under Notification No. 239/86. The appellants were issued show-cause notice asking them to explain as to why duty amounting to Rs. 24,785/- taken and availe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand is for the period 1992-93 whereas the show-cause notice has been issued on 14-12-1994. The learned Counsel therefore, points out that Modvat credit recovery is intended to be made by invoking the extended period. Elaborating her arguments, the learned Counsel submitted that as a clarificatory note the appellants by their letter dated 5-8-1993 informed the Superintendent of Central Excise that they were not claiming any Modvat credit on the inputs used for goods cleared by them without payment of duty. The learned Counsel submitted that there was no case made out either on merits or on limitation by the Department. The learned Counsel therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 4. Shri R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments by saying that neither on merits nor on limitation the appellants have been able to make out a case and thus prayed that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal be rejected. 5. Heard the submissions of sides and perused the records. The admitted position is that the tractor parts were being cleared by the appellants partly on payment of duty and partly at nil rate of duty under Notification No. 239/86-C.E. However, the admitted position is that no separate RG-23A Part-I register was being maintained by the appellants. It was only a consolidated RG-23A Part-I register which was being maintained. I find that there were no adequate remarks in RG-23A Part-I register which indicated that the inputs against which these remarks wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and partly cleared at nil rate of duty under a particular notification then the duty on the inputs used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product cleared at nil rate of duty shall have to be reversed. I find that the circumstances and the facts in the instant case are similar to the facts and circumstances decided by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal. I do no see any reason to disagree with that decision. In this view of the matter, I uphold the order of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 24,785/-. 6. It was also agitated before me that the extended period shall not be applicable in the instant case. The learned Counsel for the appellants relied on the remarks recorded in RG-23A Part-I register. A scrutiny of these rem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
