9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 268X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umaran, SDR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Shri S.D. Jha, Member (J)]. - The two questions arising for determination in this Revision Application to Central Govt. transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it are : (i) whether the demand of differential duty made by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Burnpur by Show Cause Notice dated 13-10-1976 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise, Burnpur issued notice dated 13-10-1976 calling upon the appellants to show cause to the Asstt. Collector why differential duty amounting to ₹ 17,724.53 P be not realised from them. The appellants showed cause to the Asstt. Collector and he by his order dated 27-1-1978 confirmed the demand. The demand was upheld in appeal by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice dated 13-10-1976 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise was barred by limitation. He also urged that the goods were correctly classifiable under T.I. 26 and not under T.I. 26AA as claimed by the Department. Shri Mukherjee, during the course of his arguments referred to large number of decisions of the Courts as also of the Tribunal, which would be taken note of at the appropriate plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Rule applicable was Rule 10 and not Rule 10A, as claimed by the Department. The limitation for making demand under the Rule considering the procedure adopted by the appellants was one year, the show cause notice dated 13-10-1976 for the period 1-3-197 to 31-8-1975 was clearly beyond one year of the period and therefore, barred by limitation. The demand would, therefore, have to be set aside on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
