Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2002 (7) TMI 603

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e exceeded the basic exemption limit of 20 lakhs in the respective years, resulting in short payment of duty of Rs. 4,20,858/-. On getting registered on 20-10-92, the department examined the past clearances of the assessee and came to the conclusion that the assessee suppressed the value of clearances and enjoyed SSI exemption illegally. On being pointed out, the assessee reversed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in RG 23A Part II Sl. No.7/3-11-92 initially, and other part amounts vide RG 23A P-II 9/8-11-92, 21/13-3-93. Though the assessee paid the entire amount in RG 23A P-II, it was considered as not valid, as at the material time of clearance, there was no RG 23A and accrual of credit. A show cause notice vide O.R. No. 67/96-Adjn., dated 25-1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... October, 1992, after reaching 31.0 lakhs value of clearance without any hint of value of clearances for the year 1991-92. The learned Commissioner s finding fault with the department for not adducing further evidence is not only inequitable but also misconceived as there was no dispute that the assessee wilfully suppressed the value of clearances for 2 years and to that extent the learned Commissioner ought to have held the invoking of proviso justified and proper. (b) The approval made to RT 12 was only summary, in the light of special excise system to SSI unit, the statutory obligation cast upon the assessee to come up for registration at appropriate time and pay duty cannot either be belittled or eroded by such irrelevant insignif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ably commented upon to approach appropriate authority. (f) It would appear that a lone instance of approval/assessment of RT 12 by the Range Officer will be a stumbling block for successful availment and sailing of departmental appeal before CEGAT and there have been no cases or precedents to term such an event as insignificant and may not be taken note of it. But, in overall perspective, the infirmities stated above will be far out-weigh to a singular correct finding of Learned Commissioner. 4. We have heard both sides and considered the material and find : (a) The Central Excise Rules, as regards the clearance by an assessee under Rule 173F and the assessment to be made by the proper officer under Rule 173-I, were amended o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot be invoked for the time-barred amount...... The department was therefore bound by these instructions issued in 1993, and we find no infirmity in the appellants having resorted to debiting duty in the register being maintained by them and thereafter getting the RT 12 assessed in 1993. Further demands if any, should have been made within six months of this assessment, that has not been made. Therefore, we find no reason to sustain the present notice of demand. (b) In view of the circular, mentioned in page above, we find no reason to interfere with the assessments arrived at by the proper officer in accepting the payments against the duties determined and as paid by the respondents. Therefore, the Commissioner s order directing .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de subsequently, since there is no one to one co-relation of inputs and final products under Modvat Rules. The case law relied upon by the Revenue i.e. Cochin Silicate and Glass Industries, 1996 (83) E.L.T. 430 (T) has not considered this aspect, therefore, the case is not applicable in this case. It is an admitted position in that case, when duty liability accrued, the Modvat scheme was not in force, as is seen from Para 6 of that decision. In the case before us, it is no body s case that Modvat scheme was not applicable to the respondent s end products during the years 1991-92, 1992-93 or when duty liability accrued. Therefore, the case law relied upon by Revenue is not applicable. (d) When we find that the assessments have been mad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates