TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of any contumacious conduct, suppression of facts or any fraudulent conduct on the part of the appellant. Further, there is no allegation of non receipt of goods by the appellant in respect of which modvat credit was taken. The show cause notice dated 10.07.1997 for the alleged violation relating to the period September, 1996 was admittedly issued beyond the normal period of limitation (six months) from the date of filing of the return. Under Rule 57GG(10) of Central Excise Rules, registered dealer was required to file the monthly return within seven days from the close of each month alongwith the requisite documents. There is no case of deliberate defiance made out against the appellant. Further, the appellant is a Public Sector Undert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit as a registered dealer. The appellant did not take credit and utilise the same for payment of duty, but accounted for the credit in their RG-23D register and passed on the same to the customers under the dealer invoices, issued under Rule 57GG of Central Excise Rules, 1944 on sale of such credit availed inputs, as such. Further, appellant took input credit on the basis of original/ duplicate/ triplicate/ quadruplicate and/or extra copies of invoices, to the tune of ₹ 30,52,673/-. 3. The show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent proposing to deny the said credit on the allegation that the provisions of Rule 57-I of Central Excise Rule was not applicable to dealer registered under Rule 57GG, and thus credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duplicate copies are the only valid documents for taking credit. In the second round, the Commissioner (Appeals) by order-in-appeal dated 14.01.2010 was pleased to again remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with a direction for re-examination of admissibility of credit, based on Rule 57G(11) of Central Excise Rules, read with CBEC Circular dated 23.02.1999. 5. Being aggrieved, Revenue filed appeal before this Tribunal challenging the order of remand dated 14.01.2010. This Tribunal by order dated 19.03.2015 set aside the order-in-appeal and remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner with direction to reconsider the issue based on the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. By order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice dated 10.07.1997 for the alleged violation relating to the period September, 1996 was admittedly issued beyond the normal period of limitation (six months) from the date of filing of the return. Under Rule 57GG(10) of Central Excise Rules, registered dealer was required to file the monthly return within seven days from the close of each month alongwith the requisite documents. Further, it is evident on record that although modvat credit was disallowed but no penalty was proposed upon the appellant. Thus, there is no case of deliberate defiance made out against the appellant. Further, the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and thus there is no element of taking credit wrongly for personal gain. Further, I notice that the ground o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
