TMI Blog1989 (7) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted at the relevant time. A Memorandum was issued to them by the Assistant Collector on 24-6-1977, stating that the mills did not discharge their duty liability on the cotton fabrics produced by them between the period 16-3-1977 to 30-5-1977 and alleging that they were chargeable to differential duty leviable with reference to that part of value which represented duty on yarn paid by a composite mill in accordance with Rule 96(W) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The reasons for the demand were given as follows :- In terms of Finance Act, 1976 the tariff structure in respect of cotton fabrics falling under Item No. 19-1(2) was changed from specific to ad valorem rates of duty w.e.f. 16-3-1976. M/s. Maharaja Shri Umaid Mills, Pali bein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollector s order and limited the demand to 6 months. The Revenue s appeal. No. 3341/88-D, is also against this order. 5. The Mills through their learned Advocate Sri Trivedi now submit that the demand even for 6 months is illegal and that the price lists filed by the mills could not be retrospectively modified. Their further plea is that the Collector should have filed an appeal against the approval of the price lists or a show cause notice should have been issued for their modification. They submitted that no show cause notice was issued for modifying the price lists and the notice issued on 24-6-1977 was only in respect of differential duty. 6. In addition to emphasising these two grounds, the learned Advocate for the Mills submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Assistant Collector s Order. 9. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Sri Trivedi for the Mills strongly argued that there could be no demand without revising the price lists and price lists could not be revised, especially retrospectively, without show cause notice. This argument is based on the fact that the show cause notice dated 24-6-1977 asked the mills to show cause against charging differential duty and not against revising the price lists. We ignore the Advocate s arguments that the Department should have filed an appeal as the process of filing appeals against Assistant Collector s Orders was introduced only in 1982. At the relevant time, it was open to the Collector to review the Assistant Collector s Orders. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
