9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. - The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of electric fans and availing the benefit of small-scale Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. 2. The appellants during the relevant period bought the Regulators from the various small-scale manufacturers who cleared the same on payment of concessional rate of duty. The appellants clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the quantum of credit availed by them on these Regulators in terms of the provisions of Rule 57F(1)(ii) (proviso). 3. On adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta-I held that since the Regulators are not used in or in relation to the electric ceiling fans, they cannot be considered as inputs and entitled to the Modvat credit in the first instance and the Modvat credit was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation, he submits that in the case of Jalan Containers Mfg. Corpn. v. C.C. Ex., Chandigarh reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T. 64 (Tribunal), the majority opinion was that even in the absence of limitation period in the unamended Rule 57-I, the limitation as provided under Section 11A would apply. As such demand being beyond the period of six months is barred by limitation. 7. Shri S.N. Ghosh, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch as in the case relied upon by the appellants herein, it was held that the period of limitation of six months would be available to the Department in normal circumstances. As the demand has been admittedly raised beyond the period of six months, we hold the same to be barred by limitation.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed on merits as also on limitation. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
