TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise (Appeals), New Delhi in the impugned order dated 6-6-1991, whereby Modvat credit of Rs. 4,68,622.93 was held to be wrongly availed credit, and its recovery was ordered from the appellants under Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rules, besides penalty of Rs. 5,000/- being imposed on this on the ground that scrap on which deemed Modvat credit was availed by the appellants was clearly recognisable as non-duty paid since the same was in the form of broken pieces of old and used machinery parts, and iron steel articles like Cycle parts, tin containers, etc. It may be mentioned that the fundamental requirement for earning Modvat credit of duty paid on inputs is that such inputs should be received accompanied by document evidencing payment of du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice, it is urged, has been issued on 1-2-1988 for the period March, 1986 to November, 1986. There is no charge of suppression on mis-statement of facts. Hence the demand, being beyond six months time limit, is time barred. It has also been urged that remarks by the Superintendent of Central Excise in the assessment memorandum of monthly Return RT 12 submitted by the appellants asking them to reverse the Modvat credit will not serve the purpose and cannot take the place of formal show cause notice which came to be issued only on 1-2-1988. 4. Examining these contentions, it is seen that under the self removal procedure, the Department gets the opportunity of critical scrutiny of clearance and of details of Modvat credit availed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailed letters explaining the grounds to the appellants and at their instance- and all this took place within the normal time limit under Rule 57-I. Hence it was not a case of demand simpliciter on RT 12 only. Moreover, the show cause notice when it came to be issued was only a culmination of the process started by the remarks on RT 12 Returns and the further correspondence that ensued. The show cause notice narrates the full background of Superintendent s letters, reminders and appellants response, and, ultimately, the charge is only a repetition of what the appellants had already been put on notice about in the Superintendent s letters to them. So, it is not possible to accept the contention that the earlier correspondence does not amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
