TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d equal amount of penalty on the importer. 2. After examining the records and considering the submissions made by both sides, we find that the above goods do not figure in the relevant Schedule to the Rules framed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. Section 1(3) of the said Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different classes of goods. Rules framed under the Act classified the goods. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has shown us Schedule III to the Rules, which is a list of 20 items, to which Rule 5 of the Rules would apply. This Rule 5 is the provision which has a nexus with Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , whether or not such goods were notified under this provision of the Central Excise Act. This clarification of the Board, which is abundantly clear on the point is binding on the Departmental authorities including the Commissioner who passed the impugned order. Unfortunately, ld. Commissioner did not consider the above Circular to be binding on him. We are Unable to countenance this stand of the adjudicating authority. Ld. SDR has heavily relied on the Notification issued under Section 4A ibid [Notification No. 5/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2001], wherein item No. 64 is Primary cells and Primary batteries . This Notification specified 83 items, whereas the relevant Schedule to the Weights Measures Rules mentioned only 20 items. Ld. SDR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... should be levied on Battery cell only on the basis of normal valuation. It would appear that, as early as in June 2001, the acceptance of normal valuation of Battery cells by the Commissioner of Customs was within the knowledge of the respondent in the present appeal. If that be the case, there can be no suppression of facts by the appellants, at least, from June, 2001 and the larger period of limitation was not liable to be invoked against them. The contentious arguments raised by ld. SDR will be considered at the time of final hearing stage, provided the same are substantiated by production of the relevant Schedule to the Weights and Measures Rules. 3. In the result, there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
