9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent. ORDER In this proceeding, the appellant assails order dated 27-7-1984 of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who in turn had upheld Order C. No. V/68/30/77/83/4080 dated 27-4-1984 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ernakulam IDn. In his order the Assistant Collector has disallowed a credit of ₹ 56,128.50 taken on 14-7-1980 by the appellant in R.G. 23 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In coming to final decision the Assistant Collector has observed that the procedures set out in the notification, such as giving intimation to the Department, verification of the goods with reference to the documents of transport etc., has not been done - in fact could not have been done - as at the relevant time tyre cord fabrics were not subjected to any effective levy of excise duty. For failu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a situation of the type under consideration. Notification No. 201/79 specifically provides for recouping credits taken by a manufacturer wrongly. There is no reference in the notification to any time limit within which action has to be taken by the Department to recover the sum. Section 11A refers to duty of excise that has not been levied or that has not been paid or has been short levied or shor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing a notice on the manufacturer within 6 months (or 5 years as the case may be), from the date when such credit has been allowed. Obviously the absence of such a provision in the notification would indicate the legislative intent that in the case of Notification No. 201/79, no time limit is contemplated. As however there is a decision of the West Regional Bench holding to the contrary, we direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
