TMI Blog2010 (11) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anil Khanna, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Manish Saharan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Revenue has filed this appeal against the dropping of demand and penalty by the lower appellate authority. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents are manufacturer of Sponge Iron. It is alleged that they had received insurance claim amounting to Rs. 13,59,072/-. In the relevant journal voucher, the narration of the transaction was mentioned as amount being transferred towards the value of raw material consumed (310.00 MT Rs. 2390/- PMT.) during trial run material damaged and destroyed due to heavy rains and insurance claim received Rs. 13,78,617/-. It thus appears that the respondents delibe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation. To support his contention, he places reliance in the case of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Allahabad reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 (Tri. - Del.) and Martin Harris Laboratories Ltd v. CCE, Gurgaon reported in 2005 (185) E.L.T. 421 (Tri. - Del). 5. Heard both sides. 6. On a careful examination of the submissions made by both the sides, I find that in this case, the proceedings have been initiated against the respondents on the basis of the information revealed in the balance sheet for the period 2005-06 and the show cause notice has been issued on 18/19-12-2007 which is not disputed by the parties. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that the show cause notice is barred by limitation which i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit was availed was nil as per RG 23-A. RT 12 s were assessed accordingly. However, the balance sheet for 1995-96 and 1996-97 revealed that there was excess stock of raw material as well as work in progress and based on this information, show cause notice was issued. In that case, this Tribunal has held that the demand could not have been barred by limitation following the decision in Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi reported in 2001 (134) E.L.T. 269 wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that invocation of the extended period of limitation when the assessees did not declare waste and scrap of iron and steel and aluminum and availment of credit thereon either in their classification list or modvat declaration or in the statutory record ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
