TMI Blog1985 (3) TMI 162X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut of duty paid copper casting after further machining and known as monkeys, tuyers, nozzles and the like were excisable under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff and did not continue to fall under Item 26A as claimed by the appellant. 2. The proceedings against the appellant are the outcome of a visit by Central Excise Officers to the appellant s factory and institution of a case against the appellant. (It is not possible to make out the exact date of the Superintendent s visit from the material on record). This led to registration of a case against the appellant by the Central Excise Department and notice, dated 27-4-1982 alleging contravention of Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 read with Rules 174, 9(1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, restricted the demand to a period of six months preceding the date of show cause notice. He ordered the Assistant Collector to work out the demand as per the guidelines set out in his order. It may be stated that as per this direction the Assistant Collector worked out the revised demand against the appellant at Rs. 3,49,569.94 paise. This demand is the subject matter of another appeal No. 2345/84-B, which is being disposed of and allowed by a separate order of even date. 3. At the hearing of the appeal Shri Beri, learned Advocate for the appellants, submitted that the appellant had been subjecting casting to the processes for a number of years and this was within the knowledge of the Department. The Assistant Collector of Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise were without jurisdiction null and void. 4. He also submitted that even otherwise on merits appellant s products continue to fall for assessment under Central Excise under Tariff Item 26A and not under Tariff Item 68 as claimed by the Department and held by the Collector of Central Excise. Shri Beri during course of arguments, referred to a number of decisions which if necessary, would be referred to at the appropriate place. 5. On behalf of the respondent, Shri S.C. Rohtagi, Departmental Representative strongly defended the orders passed by the lower authorities. He however, submitted that if the order of the Collector be set aside on the ground that it was a review of the order of the Assistant Collector and action for doing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lector himself in his order deals with this objection of the appellant in the following words : XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX The assessee has also produced a letter, dated 29-4-1981 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Bokaro Steel City, Communicating the decision of the then Assistant Collector. The then A.C. had held that the goods in this case are castings and will not attract further duty under Tariff Item 68. The Department has represented that the above order of the A.C. was not correct. Therefore, it is necessary that this order should be revised. For revising this decision, due process of law has been gone through, i.e. a show cause notice has been issued to the assessee, reasonable opportunity has been given to him for presenting h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation and, if he so desires, of being heard in his defence, (b) Where the Board or, as the case may be, the Collector of Central Excise is of opinion that any duty of excise has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, no order levying or enhancing the duty, or no order requiring payment of the duty so refunded, shall be made under this section unless the person affected by the proposed order is given notice to show cause against it within the time limit specified in Section 11 A. (4) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section in respect of any decision or order [whether such decision or order has been passed before or after the commencement of the Cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd Another - 1984 (16) E.L.T. 177 (Bom.). 11. Now dealing with the revisionary powers of Central Excise in similar matters, the High Court held that time limit specified in Section 11A would mean a period of six months from the date of the order. The decision was followed by us in M/s. Steel Rolling Mills of Hindustan Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, Order No. 333/84-B, dated 12-4-1984. Thus in any view of the matter, the show cause notice, dated 27/29-4-1982 for reviewing the order, dated 20-4-1981/29-4-1981 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise must be held barred by limitation and on this ground alone, the order of the Collector deserves to be set aside. 12. Shri Rohatgi argued that even if the order of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
