1971 (1) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT

Whether in order to constitute short-levy, some amount should have been assessed as payable by way of duty so as to make R. 10 applicable?

Whether the demands could be justified under Rule 9 (2)?

Held that:- By the interpretation placed by us on Rule 10, the position will be that an assessee who has been assessed to the smaller amount as well as an assessee who has been assessed to nil duty will all be put on par and that is what is intended by Rule 10.The above reasoning leads to the conclusion that Rule 10-A does not apply to the case on hand.

There is absolutely no material placed before us by the appellants which would justify the issue of the notice under Rule 9 (2). The proper provision under which action should have been taken if at all is Rule 10. The demands having admittedly been made long after the expiry of the period of three months, referred to in the said rule, it follows that the demands were not valid. The High Court was justified in striking down the notices dated November 3, 1961 Ex. G. as well as the demand dated December 2, 1961 under Ex. H. Appeal dismissed.