9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the month of June and August 1995, availed Modvat credit on the M.S. scrap. The appellant availed the Modvat credit on the duty paying documents issued by M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co., Ghaziabad. The said M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. was subjected to scrutiny by the officers and the officers found that the said M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. issued invoices for 'M.S. scrap', a description shown on the original and duplicate copy of the invoices, while the triplicate copy of the same invoice was showing description of the "Empty Containers". The said M/s. Mahabir Prasad & Co. was issued a show cause notice-cum demand dated 16-7-96, and the current appellant was shown as one of the co-noticee for the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Sanjay Kumar, the learned DR on the other hand, submits that the appellant was very much aware that he was availing credit of the duty only on paper transaction. The learned DR further submits that, availment of credit without receiving the inputs is proved from the fact that the description of goods on the third copy of the invoice of the seller did not match with the description on the invoices on which credit was availed by the appellants. He further submits, that, the seller could have procured cheap scrap from the market and despatched to the appellant. On the time-bar issue, he submitted that the investigation was in progress and hence the show cause notice was issued in time. 5. Considered the submissions made by both sides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ublic hence no suppression, accepted - period of delay in issuing show cause notice being identical to the period of delay in J.S.L. Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ahmedabad [1999 (109) E.L.T. 316 (Tri.)], demand being time barred, not sustainable - Section 11A of Central Excises Act, 1944." 9. The said decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. A-313. 10. I find, that, in this case the investigations were complete in 1996 itself and the department chose not to issue any show cause notice to the current appellant. Hence, show cause notice issued to the current appellant on 18-5-99 is clearly void and not sustainable in view of the upholding of the decision of Gannon India Ltd. case by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
