9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) demanded differential duty of Rs.7,37,222/- from the appellants in respect of their final products cleared from factory during March to July 1997 and also asked them to pay an amount of Rs.15,77,703/- equivalent to the MODVAT credit taken on inputs in-stock as on 1-8-1997 and inputs contamed in finished goods present in stock as on that date. The first demand is on the ground that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants have challenged the demand of duty of Rs.7,37,222/- on the ground of limitation. Their challenge against the rest of the demand is on the ground that there was no provision of law, during the material period, for recovery of MODVAT credit taken and already utilized (for payment of duty on final products) in respect of the inputs in stock, or contained in finished goods in stock, as o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have also independently examined the provisions of the relevant Notification viz. No. 33/97-C.E. (N.T), dated 1-8-97, wherein it had been provided that any credit of specific duty remaining unutilized with the manufacturer of hot re-rolled products of non-alloy steel, on the first day of August,1997 shall lapse and shall not be allowed to be utilized for payment of duty on any excisable goods, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenging the demand as time-barred. It is submitted that such a demand of duty raised in Show-Cause Notice dated 12-12-1997, for the period March to July 1997, is time-barred. The case of the Revenue seems to be that the assessee was conducting themselves with intent to evade payment of duty inasmuch as they had, in fact, paid similar duty for the months of June and July 1997 (within normal per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
