TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty under T.I. I8A till the beginning of 1975. They were intimated by the Inspector of the Central Excise, Konnur vide his letter dated 26/28-7-1975 that tyre cord warp sheets are considered as cotton fabrics by the Department and not as cycle cord yarn and appellants were asked to maintain accounts in sq. mts. and not in kgs. Again appellants were intimated by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hykeri vide his letter dated 4-8-1975 that cycle cord warp sheets are to be treated as fabric falling under T.I. 19 and appellants were advised to file classification list immediately. The appellants registered their protest under their letter dated 15-8-1975 and filed a classification list and paid duty under protest on such sheets as cotton fabr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Cloth and General Mills v. State of Rajasthan and Others - 1980 E.L.T. 383 (S.C.), the Karnataka High Court disposed of both the Writ Petition Nos. 2155/76 and 2632/76 holding that tyre cord warp sheets manufactured by the appellants were to be treated as fabrics and the stay order was vacated on 16-2-1981. Consequent on this decision, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued an Order No. V/19/3/96/75, dated 26-11-1981 confirming the demand for short-levy and also demanding duty in respect of clearances made from 20-6-1976 to 23-2-1981. 5. Appellants challenged that order before the Collector (Appeals) who vide his Order-in-Appeal issued from File A. No. 52 to 55 (B) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per the judgment, appellants are bound to pay dity leviable on cotton tyre cord warp sheets at the rate applicable to fabrics which were cleared by them as yarn during the period of interim injunction. 7. Not satisfied by the said order passed by the Collector (Appeals), Madras, the appellants filed an appeal before this Tribunal, which we are disposing of by this order. 8. We have heard Shri Taraporewala, Advocate assisted by Shri A.S. Boxwala and Shri D.P. Anand, Consultants for the appellants and Shri M. Chandrasekharan, Advocate assisted by Shri V. Shridharan, Chartered Accountant and Shri Vineet Ohri, S.D.R. and gone through the record. 9. Shri Taraporewala, the learned Counsel for the appellants, did not argue the case on meri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 76, the appellants had paid under protest. He cited a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Siraj-u-Haq-Khan and Ors. v. The Sunni Central Board of Waqf, U.P. reported as AIR 1959 S.C. 198 in support of his contention that if there was nothing in the injunction order restraining the department from assessing the goods in dispute as cotton fabrics by issuing a show cause notice, the Department is not entitled to claim extension of time on the ground that it was prevented from doing so by the issue of stay order passed by the Karnataka High Court. The stay was only against collection of duty as cotton fabrics. It did not debar the department to issue the show cause notice. He pointed out that the Hon ble Supreme Court approved the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period from 20-6-1976 to 23-2-1981 was raised for the first time under show cause notice issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Gokak on 20th May, 1982 is incorrect since the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum has already demanded duty amount for the above period, while passing order confirming the demand for the period from 1-4-1975 to 18-8-1975 under adjudication Order C. No. V/19/3/96/75, dated 26-11-1981 and it is not time-barred as stated by the learned Counsel of the appellants. According to him, there was no necessity to issue a show cause notice as discussed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras under his Order-in-Appeal. 12. There are certain facts which are admitted ones. Show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The plea of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the demand raised for the period from 20-6-1976 to 23-2-1981 was barred by time is not sustainable. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 20-5-1982 shows that this was a notice in continuation of an earlier one dated 21-1-1976. In fact, it was originally on 28-7-1975 and 4-8-1975 that the appellants were put on notice that the department wanted to classify the warp sheets as fabrics. After the Supreme Court judgment, followed by the High Court Judgment in the specific case, there was no need to issue a show cause notice and it was only a demand which was re-agitated vide notice dated 20-5-1982, after the vacation of the stay order by the High Court. The interim order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
