Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... on 20 April, 2001
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. On hearing both sides, the appeal was taken up for final disposal on granting proforma waiver of Rs.4,85,540/- and penalty of Rs.10,000/-.
2. The appellants took credit on the duty paid viscose staple. This input was not used in any final product. However the credit taken thereupon was utilised in the clearance of other goods. Show cause notice was issued on 8.11.1994 where the credit taken was during the period August, 1993 to January, 1994. The Assistant Commissioner held against the assessees. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. Before him it was claimed that the demand was hit by limitation inasmuch as the show cause notice did not allege mis-statement, fraud, suppression etc. which was necessary to cover the extended period. The Commissioner made two observations. The first was that the plea was not raised before the Assistant Commissioner and the second was that the show cause notices mentioned that the credit wrongly taken was sufficient. In the appeal against this order, Shri J.C. Patel strongly stressed this point.
3. I have carefully read the show cause notice and find that it does not make such allegations as are required to be made in terms of proviso to rule 57(1)(i) for the extended period to be covered. By implication also this (sic) cannot be read into the show cause notice. The fact that the ground was not raised before the Assistant Commissioner was not material. It is well settled that a point of law can be agitated at any stage.
4. Finding that the demand confirmed was hit by limitation, without going into the merits of the issue, the appeal is allowed.
(Dictated in Court)