TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 24-7-1979 whereby he disposed of eight appeals filed by the Company against eight different orders of the Assistant Collector, passed in respect to different units of the Company. The particulars of the Order-in-Original, and the appeal references are all detailed in the Order-in-Appeal. 2. All these revision petitions stand transferred to the Tribunal by virtue of the provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be treated as appeals before the Tribunal. These are being disposed of as such. 3. The proceedings against the Company emanated from the notices given to different units operating in and around Mangalore where beedies which the appellants describe as Hand-made , are being manufactured. The controv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... records, and that this had resulted in failure to pay excise duty, leviable on beedies, which in Department s view had to be treated to have been manufactured after 1-3-1975. 5. The Company took up the position that packing or labelling was post-manufacturing operation, and that the `manufacture was complete as soon as beedies came into existence, and as such whatever number of beedies was lying in stock as on the expiry of 28-2-1975, whether in packages or loose or due for packing, ought to be deemed to have been manufactured before the crucial date i.e. 1-3-1975. They further pleaded that in any case there had been no concealment or mis-statement on their part, as they placed before the authorities all of their stocks, as well as reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. The appellant assailed these findings in these appeals, which are being taken up together for disposal in view of common question of facts and law being raised. Shri K. Chennabasappa, Advocate appearing for the appellants canvassed the same proposition, as were taken up before the lower authorities, and reiterated in the ground of appeal; namely that manufacture stood completed as soon as beedies came into existence, and that packing and labelling was incidental, in order to facilitate marketing and not in any case essential to the process of manufacture, and further that there was no mis-declaration on the part of the appellants as they had given inspection of all their existing stocks as well as of all the records to the authorities a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... He thus contended that in face of this position, the charge of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, so as to attract Rule 9(2) was no longer sustainable, and that the only rule to apply was Rule 10, and consequently residuary provisions of Rule 10A could also not be invoked, as has been done in two of the eight cases, and that judging by any criterion the demand raised after about 22 months, in all cases was clearly barred by time. 10. Sicne this contention appeared to be prima facie tenable, we did not think necessary to further go into the question, as to at what stage, the manufacturing process could be considered to have been completed, and called upon the learned SDR to state, as to what could be urged, in relation to the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f all the charges of mis-declaration or wilful mis-statement of facts or suppression of records; otherwise also, we find it to be a case where no inference of any mis-declaration or concealment can legitimately be drawn. The learned Counsel for the appellant placed before us a copy of the AR 1 form, dated 4-3-1975, clearly indicating that the stock of hand-made beedies cleared thereby was from pre-budget stock as on 28-2-1975. This form was received in the office on 5-3-1975 and duly certified for clearance on 7-3-1975. It is stated by the learned Counsel that this was the position in relation to all the clearances, which were effected, according to the chart given at internal page 3 of the appeal, on 5-3-1975 in six cases and on 7-3-1975 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to Rule 10 on account of short levy or non levy. The provisions of Rule 9(2) were thus not at all available to the Department nor could Rule 10A be invoked because that was a residuary provision and when specific provision in the form of Rule 10 was available, then no recourse could be had to Rule 10A. 16. We have thus no hesitation in holding that the demands of duty raised long after the expiry of the period of three months in all the eight cases, were clearly barred by time, and consequently the orders confirming the said demands and those of the Appellate Collector upholding the said confirmation of demands, are clearly not sustainable. These demands are, therefore, liable to be quashed on account of being barred by ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
