AMAN ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE issues involved in this Appeal Filed by M/s. Aman Engineering. Works are whether MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs in available to them and whether the demand is barred by time limit specified in Rule 57 I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

(2.) SHRI K.K. Anand, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture water meters and avail MODVAT credit of the duty paid on inputs; that they had availed the MODVAT credit of the duty paid on imported brass scrap on the strength of one invoice No. 56 dated 26.12.97 issued by M/s. Shobhit Impex who were importers and registered dealers authorized to issue modvatable invoices; that the MODVAT credit has been disallowed to them on the ground that they has only received the invoice without receipt of the goods. He, further, submitted that the entire demand is bit by bar of limitation as they had submitted copies of invoices along with RT 12 returns; that no allegation of fraud suppression of facts etc. with an intent to evade payment of duty was mentioned in the show cause notice; that in absence of any such allegation in the show cause notice, extended period of limitation can not be invoked. He relied upon the decision in the case of CCE Vs. HMM Ltd, 2002 -Taxindiaonline -120 -SC -CX. Finally, he mentioned that in the case of M/s. Leader Engineering Works Vs. CCE Jalandhar and M/s. V.K. Valve (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE Jalandhar which had also arisen out of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. A -622/2003 -NB(S) dated 24.6.01 and 795/03 -B dated 7.10.03 respectively, has held that the there is no whisper in the show casue notice regarding the invokability of extended of period of limitation the therefore, no duty demand can be confirmed against them after expiry of statutory period.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments Shri V. Valte, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the show cause notice has been issued to a number of assessees only on the ground that the inputs were not received and they had taken the MODVAT credit only on the basis of invoice; that these facts clearly show that the MODVAT credit has been taken by them fraudulently and as such extended period is invoikable.