Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (9) TMI 151

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esidential colony, hospital etc. The appellants applied to the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for review of the said order. Under order dated nil the Collector declined to interfere with the order of the Deputy Collector, holding the same to be proper. It is against the said order that this appeal has been preferred. 2. We have heard Shri Jaswant Singh, Consultant for the appellants and Shri Balbir Singh for the Department. 3. Admittedly, the electricity generated by the appellants is supplied by them to their residential colony as also their hospital. It is with refererence to a quantity of 7,96,500 units supplied to the said residential colony and hospital that duty has now been demanded, the period being 1-3-1978 to 30-4-1980. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ends that the notice having been issued for a period more than 6 months preceding the date of the notice the demand was barred by time. From the order of the Deputy Collector or the order of the Collector it does not appear that this issue of limitation was specifically raised and dealt with. The reply, dated 20-5-1981 to the notice dated 29-4-1981 does not raise this question of limitation. The petition to the Collector for review of the order of the Deputy Collector is not available to us. But a copy of the record of personal hearing held by the Collector on 20-7-1982 is available in the paper book. The same refers to the contention of the appellants that there had been no suppression of facts and no clandestine removal. No doubt here als .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nspector had written to the appellants, with reference to their letter, dated 19-7-1980, that a quantity of 7,96,500 units of electricity had been used for purposes other than captive consumption in the manufacture of goods and appellants were therefore, liable to pay duty of Rs. 15,930/- thereon. Under the said letter, he had directed them to make the payment. That is to say, it was a peremptory demand. The appellants had replied under letter, dated 15-9-1980 protesting against the demand. On that the Assistant Collector had sent a communication, dated 25-3-1981 justifying the demand for payment of duty and calling for the payment. The appellants appear to have addressed the Collector under letter, dated 8-4-1981 requesting him to consider .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Deptt. was aware that the appellants, in supplying electricity generated by them to their residential colony and hospital, were not entitled to benefit under Notification No. 52/78 in respect of that quantity of electricity. Therefore, at any rate in respect of duty payable after the said date of knowledge the demand therefor should have been issued within the normal period of limitation and not the extended period of limitation. The position will be different in respect of duty payable before the said date of knowledge since it is clear that before that date the appellants had not merely contravened the provisions regarding taking out a licence but had supplied electricity to the residential colony and hospital without payment of duty a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... irm the liability for payment of duty in respect of the quantum of electricity supplied to the colony and hospital, but remitting the matter to the Deputy Collector for deciding afresh as to which part of the claim is within time and which part is not, in the light of the discussions and findings earlier. So far as liability for penalty is concerned, we uphold the orders of the lower authorities that this is a proper case for imposition of penalty since electricity had been manufactured without licence and removed, at least in part, without payment of proper duty. But we feel that the quantum thereof would merit reduction. We, accordingly, reduce the same to Rs. 2,000/-. 11. Thus the findings of the lower authorities as to liability of pa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates