TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sridharan, for the Appellant. Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.D. Jha, Member(J)] . - The two questions surviving for consideration in this Appeal are whether (i) the time limit of raising demand of duty should have been extended time limit of 5 years or the shorter time limit of 6 months; and (ii) the duty should have been determined under Rule 9A(5) of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeals), constitutes mis-statement so as to attract the extended time limit of five years set out in Section 11 A of the Act. For proper appreciation, the material part of the order of the Collector (Appeals) is extracted below : This issue can be straightaway disposed of because the appellants have all through been insisting that the parts of cash registers were not liable to duty and that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e demands of duty within time and on this account the appellants cannot be held guilty of wilful mis-statement. We do not agree with the contention of learned S.D.R. Mrs. V. Zutshi that even such contentions could constitute wilful mis-statement and would attract the higher time limit of 5 years for raising a demand against the party. We hold that the time limit applicable in such a situation woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, had cleared the goods on the strength of proper excise papers and the date of actual removal of goods from the factory was well-known to the department. To us it appears that on the facts and circumstances of the case, sub-rule (5) would not be applicable and the rule applicable would be the one claimed by the appellants. We hold accordingly. As a result, the demand of duty from the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
