TMI Blog1999 (1) TMI 294X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been attended to and hence a fresh memo had been issued on 12-9-1996. These cases have been listed to enable the appellant/revenue to attend to the defects issued by the Registry. 2. Shri S.S. Radhakrishnan, Advocate appears for M/s. Shetron Ltd. and files a fist of judgments to say that the issue in these appeals has since been decided by the Tribunal and hence the appeals itself could be taken up for disposal in terns of these judgments. 3. Learned DRs, Shri S. Kannan and Mrs. Aruna Gupta were served with copy of all these judgments. On perusal they submit that the issue lies on a short compass and submit that the appeals can be taken up for disposal. They made submissions in terms of the submissions in the appeal memo. 3. Learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted in 1992 (59) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.). 7. The Revenue in these appeals have taken a view that Section 28 deals with duty alone and the demand notice in question was issued for initiating action under Section 142 of the Customs Act read with Section 59 of the Customs Act under which the period is one year. They have also taken a view that principles of promissory estoppel cannot be applied in the present case. 8. On a careful consideration of these submissions, we notice that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. T.V.S. Whirlpool Ltd. reported in 1996 (86) E.L.T. 144 (Tri.) on this very issue of recovery of interest on warehouse goods have taken a view that no time limit prescribed for recovery of demand/recovery of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pra the appeals themselves are also taken up for disposal with the consent of the both sides. The only plea of the Revenue is that in the absence of any period of limitation provided under Section 61(3), the general period, of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act should be made applicable. We are unable to accept this plea of the ld. DR in view of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of G.O.I. v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals (supra). The Honble Supreme Court in para 6 has held is reproduced below : Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule 12 is unreasonaible and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of duty. He urged th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and rules reasonable period limitation would be six months or five years depending upon whether there has been any suppression of facts etc. with the fraudulent intention or not. We observe as pointed out before us that the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act so far as the recovery of duty etc. is concerned is similar to that under the Customs Act, 1962. Here also we observe under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 period of limitation prescribed for recovery of duty is six months or five years as above and also the period for claim of refund is also six months. The position being similar we hold that the same logic should apply in respect of the recovery to be made under the Customs Act where no period of limitation has been prescribed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
