TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upheld. 2. For proper appreciation, history of the case is necessary. The appellants at their factory at Vatva Industrial Area, Ahmedabad had been manufacturing `Stainless Steel Pipes Tubes since 1972 from Stainless Steel Strips, Plates, Sheets etc. imported from abroad . On these imports, Customs and countervailing duty, as prescribed from time to time had already paid. The appellants claim that under bona fide impression that no excise duty was payable on pipes and tubes manufactured from the imported stainless steel strips, plates and sheets on which countervailing duty had already been paid, they did not pay duty till March, 1975. After introduction of Tariff Item 68 in Central Excise Tariff from 1st March, 1975 covering all good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s etc. during the period 1-3-1973 to 31-3-1975 without obtaining necessary licence under the Act and without payment of duty. The appellants were inter alia called upon to show cause to the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda why Central Excise duty due on the said goods at appropriate rates should not be recovered from the appellants. The appellants filed reply explaining that pipes and tubes manufactured by them during the period were not liable to excise duty in view of certain exemption notifications. The Collector of Central Excise, Baroda (Shri K.S. Dilipsinhji) by his order-in-original dated 21-12-1978 negativated appellants pleas and imposed penalty of ₹ 52,000/-, ordered confiscation of plant, machinery and building on a red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his order dated 30-3-1983 and hence this appeal to the Tribunal. 5. At the hearing, Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Counsel for the appellants made the following contentions : (i) no notice of demand under Rule 10 or Rule 10A was served on the appellants, the demand was, therefore, illegal; (ii) Rule 10A under which, there was no time-limit was applicable only when Rule 10 was not applicable, in the appellants case Rule 10 was applicable under which the time-limit was 3 months. The demand made from the appellants was patently hit by time bar; (iii) notice dated 22-12-1975 was only a show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause why penalty should not be imposed for not taking out a licence. It could not under any circum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the respondent, Shri A.K. Jain, Senior Departmental Representative submitted that on the facts and circumstances of the case, no further show cause notice to the appellants was necessary. He also submitted that countervailing duty and Excise duty are two different levies and the appellants could not at the material time claim benefit of exemption notification on the ground that c.v.d. for imported stainless steel strips, plates, sheets had been paid. He submitted that the demand made from the appellants was legal and justified. He also submitted that it was not necessary that show cause notice should contain/mention specific amount of duty demanded. If the basis on which calculation of demand could be made was there in the notice, it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me the Government amended the demand, the duty claimed became barred even under Rule 10. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. There is no dispute that the officer who made the demand was competent to make demands both under Rule 9(2) as well as under Rule 10. In view of the above, the mere fact that notice did not specify the correct rule would not make it illegal, if it is otherwise found to be in order. Besides, as would be shown later, it is not open to the appellants to raise this contention now. As to Shri Habbu s contention that notice did not specify the specific amount and was, therefore, illegal and his reliance on a Single Judge judgment in M/s. J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd. v. Union of India Ors., 1980 E.L.T. 121 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of duty is concerned, the Collector of Central Excise (Shri K.S. Dilipsinhji) in his order dated 22-12-1978 did not pass any order with regard to payment of duty and said that the matter was being handled by the concerned Asstt. Collector, who was to finalise it early. If the Collector of Central Excise passed an order confirming the duty liability of the appellants for specified period and at the appropriate rate, in view of the Delhi High Court judgment referred to above, the amount of duty was only a matter of calculation. The Central Board of Excise Customs by its order dated 6-12-1979 had already directed the appellants to pay duty as might be assessed by the competent authority. It must be emphasised that all these orders were cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
