TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty of equal amount on them under the erstwhile Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Rule 57-I(4)/57AH of the said Rules and Sections 11AC and 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and has, further, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal (appellant in Appeal No. E/2959/2002-NB-C) under Rule 209 A of the said Rules read with Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. M/s. Amit Industries were engaged in the manufacture of electrical stampings and laminations falling under CH 83.12 of the CET Schedule and were availing Modvat/Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs used in the manufacture of the said products. From the results of investigation made into the process of manufacture undertaken by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intent to misutilise the credit". The show cause notice also proposed to penalize Suresh Agarwal (proprietor of Amit Industries) under Rule 209A by alleging that he had aided and abetted the offence committed by M/s. Amit Industries. The allegations were denied and the demand of duty contested. The Commissioner, who adjudicated the show cause notice, passed the impugned order. 3. Heard both the sides. 4. The Counsel for the appellants challenged the order of the Commissioner on merits as well as on limitation and the SDR defended the order on the strength of the findings recorded therein. 5. After a careful examination of the submissions, we are of the view that this case can be disposed of with a considered decision on the limitatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t documents such as price lists had been filed with the department by the assessee and, therefore, the larger period of limitation was not invocable against them. Counsel pointed out that this decision of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Supreme Court vide [2003 (153) E.L.T. A301]. Reliance was also placed on the Tribunal's decision in Pranav Vikas (India) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2002 (148) E.L.T. 963 (Tri.-Del.), wherein it was held that suppression of facts could not be attributed to the assessee as each and every fact was available to the department through the details furnished in the RT-12 Returns filed by the party. The documents referred to by the Counsel were not contradicted by the DR, nor any better case law cited by him on the li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pings etc. The rejects which were sold as such after reversal of Modvat credit were duly reflected in their RT-12 returns. In our judgment, the particulars furnished by the appellants through their Classification/Modvat declarations and RT-12 returns were enough for the department to clear any doubt with regard to removal of scrap as such from factory and utilization of other scrap materials in the manufacturing process. Atleast after the Modvat declaration was filed on 27-7-98, wherein rejected materials were cited as inputs, it should have occurred to the department that the appellants were claiming Modvat credit on scrap used in the various stages of the process of manufacture, including the sorting stage. It was only after a long period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
