9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (1) TMI 360X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s to be made in appeal No. 332/81 only, both appeals were heard together. 2. M/s. Jalan Dyeing & Bleaching Mills had been receiving textile fabrics from merchants and customers for processing. One such customer was Parkash Cotton Mills. With reference to certain sort numbers received for processing from Parkash Cotton Mills, which had been processed and cleared by the appellants under T.I.19(1)(ii) CET, they were intimated that the proper classification was under T.I. 19(1)(i) CET and on that basis two show cause notices were issued demanding payment of differential duty. The contentions raised by the appellants were rejected by the concerned Assistant Collector under two orders, dated 22nd April, 1978 and 12th May, 1978. Under these order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . This earlier correspondence commenced with a letter dated 8-12-1976 from the Superintendent. The first paragraph in the said letter read as follows: "The Superintendent, Central Excise, Range (not clear) Bombay Divn. I under his letter No. GENS/PCM/76-1671 dated 12-1-1976 reported that the following sort No. declared by (M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills) you as 19(1)(ii) how were as per Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Divn. I they were treated as 19(1)(i)." The second paragraph of the said letter thereupon sought for particulars of clearances in order to enable the Deptt. to issue necessary show cause notice and recover necessary differential duty. The particulars sought for were given under letter 24-2-1977 and 12-3-1977. This was follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills was under T.I.19(l)(i) but that even so the appellants classified the goods under item 19(l)(ii) and hence they were guilty of mis-declaration. The Assistant Collector observed that in spite of knowledge of classification under Item 19(l)(i) by the customer the appellants falsely classified the same goods under item 19(l)(ii) after processing and were therefore liable for the payment of differential duty. It is on this basis that the Assistant Collector in his order confirmed the demand, for differential duty. The Appellate Collector also upheld the order of the Assistant Collector on the same reasoning. 7. But the appellants have produced classification list No. 8/76 of Parkash Cotton Mills to show that hereunder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perusal of the correspondence that ensued, including the issue of the regular show couse notices and letters exchanged thereafter, it is clear that the Superintendent who issued the demand did not at any time disclose to the appellants the material on the basis of which the Assistant Collector, Divn. I (the Assistant Collector for the appellants being up Divn. IV) had altered the approved classification from 19(l)(ii) to 19(l)(i). In the circumstances, it is clear that in raising the demand for payment of differential duty the authorities had failed to disclose to the appellants the basis on which they were altering the classification already approved. The appellants are therefore justified in contending that for this reason itself the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
