Per Jeet Ram Kait :This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. CEX.XI/JMJ/433/916/NSK/APL/2003 dated 26.12.2003 by which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that there is a suppression and the extended period is invokable, thus, attracting the provisions of Sections 11AB and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants have not challenged that part of the order of the original authority by which he has confirmed the total duty demand 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 superceding 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 that M/s. Prasant Khosla Pneumatic Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. (KOEL) w.e.f. 1.4.98. This Prasant Khosla Pneumatic Ltd. had received certain components under Chapter X procedure without payment of duty and these components were to be used in the manufacture of 'MAN' diesel engine. Over a period of time, these components became obsolete and could not be utilized and became unusable for the intended industrial purpose. Their value was also written down in the balance sheet in July 2000. They had applied for remission of duty on these obsolete components but no action was taken by the jurisdictional Commissioner on this application which was submitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner under Rule 196B read with Rule 173P of the Central Excise Rules. On 2.10.2001 after waiting for a period of more than one year, they disposed of their components which were received under Chapter X procedure and paid duty under protest. In this connection, learned Counsel also invited my attention to the findings of the original authority at internal page 7 (unnumbered para 3) wherein the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, has admitted that it was a fact that appellant was filing RT returns and other returns in respect of various components and the return for the quarter ending 30.6.2000 shows number of components lying in stock but no remark regarding obsolete item has been mentioned either on the return or informed to the Department even when balance 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 invokable and therefore, the penalty under Section 11AC 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) ELT 346 in the matter of Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad wherein it has been held that if demand has been raised on the basis of information appearing in the balance sheet extended period of limitation for such demand cannot be invoked inasmuch as the balance sheet of the companies being a publicly available documents, allegation of suppression of such information is not sustainable and extended period was held to be not invokable under proviso (1) to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. He also invited my attention to the judgment of the Bangalore Bench of this Tribunal reported in 2002