TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Rs. 2,50,751/- (duty amount of Rs. 2,40,917/- + Modvat credit of Rs. 9,834/-). Therefore, the challenge before me is against invocation of the provisions of Sections 11AC and 11AB of the CESA, 1944. 2. Appearing on behalf of the appellants Shri S.P. Sheth, Advocate submits that in the books of account the value had been written down to show the present net value of the inputs. These inputs were lying in the factory at the time of issue of first show cause notice dated 20-6-2000. Another show cause notice, dated 20-4-2000 superseding the earlier show cause notice was issued. He further submits that on 17-8-2000, the inputs were cleared as such by reversing the credit of Rs. 9,834/-. As regards the amount of Rs. 2,40,917/-, he submits t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet was showing the fact regarding the written down value of the goods/inputs under Schedule 17. He further submitted that since balance sheet of the present companies namely, Prasant Khosla Pneumatic Ltd. and Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. being publicly available documents, allegation of suppression of such information cannot be sustained and therefore, extended period under proviso (1) of Section 11A is not invocable and therefore, the penalty under Section 11C and interest under Section 11AB cannot be imposed on them. In this connection, he invited my attention to the judgment rendered by CEGAT, Northern Bench, New Delhi reported in 2003 (161) E.L.T. 346 in the matter of Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E, Allahabad wherein it has been he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment, as they have not made any remark in the RT-11 returns regarding the components being obsolete specially when their balance sheet was showing the fact regarding written down value of the goods/inputs under Schedule 17. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal of the appellants deserves to be rejected and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be sustained. 4. I have examined the records and heard both sides. From the records and overall submissions made by the learned Counsel today, I find that in July 2000, they had applied for remission of duty under Rule 196B read with Rule 173P of the Rules ibid and they waited for a considerable period of more than one year for the permission to come from the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
