TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants are engaged in the manufacture of branded electronic exhaust fans. In the manufacture of these fans, aluminium alloy ingots are their one of the inputs. They availed deemed Modvat credit of the disputed amount during the periods in 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92 (till 8-1-1992) on aluminium alloy ingots. These goods were purchased by them from M/s. Avon Alloys Casting Co. and M/s. Baldev Metals Pvt. Ltd. (both authorised stockists of M/s. Hindustan Alloys Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Bombay). The Department issued them show cause notice after invoking the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and vide which the recovery of the amount of which they had taken Modvat credit was sought to be made and penalty was also proposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been also audit of the accounts of the appellants by the Department but, at no stage, objection was taken about the wrong availment of Modvat credit of the disputed amount by the appellants. All the facts were within the knowledge of the Department. Therefore, the demand raised by the Department is time-barred. 5. On the other hand, the learned SDR, has not been able to refute this contention of the learned Counsel. He has only stated that when the facts came to the notice of the Department that the goods were cleared by the manufacturer under exemption Notification No. 180/88-C.E. without payment of duty, the show cause notice was served on the appellants and as such the demand is within time. 6. I have heard both sides. The perusal o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. No presumption regarding the non payment of duty in respect of those goods by the manufacturer could be drawn. The notification No. 180/88-C.E., referred to above, was conditional. There is nothing on the record to suggest that the conditions mentioned therein were satisfied by the manufacturer, M/s. HAMCO, and they were allowed to avail the exemption under that Notification. Moreover, the appellants had disclosed in their RT-12 returns filed along with RG-23A, Parts I and II about the availment of deemed Modvat credit by them in respect of the goods purchased from the stockists of the manufacturer, M/s. HAMCO. There being no concealment or suppression of facts by the appellants, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
