TMI Blog2003 (9) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Central Government, deemed credit is provided on such aluminium alloys/ingots falling under Heading 76.01 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellant had been purchasing aluminium alloys/ingots from M/s. Baheti Metal and Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad. The appellant was availing deemed credit on the aluminium ingots purchased from Baheti Metal. The present proceedings arise out a show cause notice dated 5-8-1993 proposing to deny the deemed credit taken by the appellant for the period 6-6-1988 to 20-5-1991. Apart from the arguments addressed on merits, the assessee contended before the Commissioner that the demand is barred by limitation. According to the assessee since it was not guilty of suppression of fact with intent to evade duty, the ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of Central Excise in respect of these transactions. It is also pointed out that the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division II, Ahmedabad had issued a show cause notice dated 15/18-11-1991 for the period May 1991 on the same allegation. The appellant had submitted its reply on 18-12-1991. Two years there after the present show cause notice dated 5-8-1993 is issued. In its reply to the show cause notice one of the contentions raised by the appellant was that the show cause notice is barred by limitation. This contention was not accepted by the Commissioner. He took the view that the appellant was fully aware that goods cleared by M/s. Baheti Metal and Alloys were cleared under exemption and therefore, the appellant was not enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant is not entitled to take deemed Modvat credit. It was guilty of suppressing the above fact with intention to take deemed Modvat credit for which they were not entitled under the law. Therefore, according to the Commissioner invocation of larger period of limitation was justified. 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took us through the show cause notice dated 18-11-1991 and 5-8-1993. It can be seen that the allegation in both the show cause notices was the same. Apart from an assertion that the appellant was aware of the fact that its supplier was clearing the ingots under exemption notification. There is no material produced by the Revenue in support of the above finding when the assessee takes a specific stand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
