TMI Blog1988 (10) TMI 40X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are accordingly dismissed. - 1571-72 of 1988 - - - Dated:- 26-10-1988 - Sabyachi Mukharji and S. Ranganathan, JJ. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.] - These are appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arising out of the orders dated 7th October, 1987 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'). Revenue is the appellant herein. The respondent-company manufactures L.P.G.F. valves and regulators falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent-company was receiving brass rods manufactured by M/s. Bhandary Metal Corporation, Bombay and availed set-off of duty as stipulated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued to it within time and that there had been no fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of facts on its part and that it had correctly availed of the set-off of duty. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat after considering the matter confirmed the demand for duty by his order dated 9th February, 1981. The case of the Revenue was the respondent-company had utilised wrong set-off of duty on the raw materials falling under T.I. other than Tariff Item 68 and the Range Superintendent, Surat had pointed out short payment of duty involving Rs. 38,460.12 on RT-12 returns for the month of April 1979 to August, 1979. The demand of Rs. 38,460.12 was confirmed by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 20th Februar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion or any wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts, or contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of the rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of duty, by such person or his agent, the provisions of this sub-section shall have affect, (as if for the words "Central Excise officer", the words "Collector of Central Excise", and) for the words "six months", the words "five years" were substituted. Explanation. - Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a Court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of six months or five years, as the case may be. (2) (The Assistant Collector of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Collector of Central Excise) shall, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, the date of such refund." The said section provides that when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded, a notice may be served on the concerned person within a period of six months. In the instant case, the time taken for the service of the notice is beyond a period of six months. The Tribunal took the view that the classification lists had been finalised by the Bombay Collectorate and the Assistant Collector, Surat had no authority to reopen those assessments, it referred to a decision of it in M/s. Jay Industries, Hyderabad v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (1984 ECR 100). In the aforesaid view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
