TMI Blog1971 (1) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt dated December 9, 1956 in Appeal No. 110 of 1965. By the said judgment the Division Bench confirmed the order of the learned single Judge in Miscellaneous petition No. 131 of 1964 quashing the Notice dated November 9, 1965 issued under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 2. The first respondent is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, who manufactures steel w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed as the Rules), certain exemptions were granted. By another Notification No. 90 of 1962 issued under the same rule on May 10, 1962 certain iron and steel products were exempted. 4. The first respondent had manufactured steel wires out of the imported steel wire rods and had substantially removed them from their manufacturing premises between the period May 4, 1962 and June 21, 1963. There is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand was also followed by a letter of the first appellant calling upon the first respondent to pay the additional duty demanded. 5. The respondents filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 131 of 1964 in the High Court of Bombay under Article 226 to quash the demands contained in the notice dated Nov. 9, 1963. Before the learned single judge both the sides appear to have accepted that the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted November 9, 1963. We may further state that even on the restricted interpretation sought to be placed on Rule 10 by the appellant it will be seen that the case on hand is one the where a duty was levied and paid by the party. What is sought, to be done is to recover an additional duty on the ground that the original imposition was at a lower rate due to the misapprehension of the Department. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
