TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed pursuant to show cause notice dated 3-2-1999 issued to the appellant. The basis of the show cause notice was the records kept by the appellants relating to insurance claim, cost reduction and some miscellaneous papers. The allegation regarding excess credit related to taking of credit of duty on inputs which was been short received, inputs which was still in stock and the inputs which had been sold as they were not suitable for manufacture. 3. The appellants had explained that in cases of short receipt of chips, Modvat credit had been taken only in respect of quantities actually received. In respect of inputs in stock, they contended that no reversal of credit is called for inasmuch as there is no time limit for the utilisation of inpu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00 kgs. of such chips during 30-7-1997 to 24-11-1997 on payment of duty of Rs. 8,50,658.00 equal to amount of credit availed. Since the party themselves are well aware that credit on such unusable chips is to be reversed, they ought to have reversed the credit involved on 97.404 kgs on 9-10-1996 itself as on this date they were fully aware that this stock of 97.404 Tons was not usable. Clearance of such chips in future in next financial year on payment of duty can not be allowed for the stock held on 9-10-1996. Thus, the credit of Rs. 9,740,40.00 involved on these chips was not admissible to them and was recoverable under Rule 57-I. Regarding 200 MT Nasis chips the party admitted that it was purchased from Nasik and was lying in the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been paid. That too without giving allowance for the Rs. 8.5 Lakhs already paid. 6. Appellants have also submitted that no duty demand could be made in respect of inputs which are still available in stock inasmuch as there is no time-limit for utilising the material in manufacture. This submission has been made based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. Dai-Ichi Karkaria [1999 (112) E.L.T. 353]. The Commissioner has not accepted this submission too. 7. As against ths above submissions on behalf of the appellants, the ld. DR has submitted that the demand has been confirmed based on the appellants on records and that the appellants should have reversed the Modvat Credit taken once they kne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
