TMI Blog1991 (6) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espect of claim covered by the show cause notice covering the period spread over September 1976. It is the revisional order on the basis of which the Assistant Collector passed a consequential order at Annexure F by which he has reiterated the demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 5,93,321.75. If the revision order which is the basis of the later order of the Assistant Collector falls through in this connection, the consequential order at Annexure F demanding duty of Rs. 5,93,321.75 from the petitioner will obviously not survive. 3. In order to appreciate the grievance of the petitioner centering round these orders at Annexures E and F, it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. The petitioner is a multi-unit co-operative society engaged i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n No. 108/74-C.E., dated 20-6-1974 exempting fertilisers from duty equivalent to the duty payable on the fertilisers pool equalisation charge. The said notification provided for crediting into the pool fund of fertilisers pool equalisation fund amounts notified in accordance with the directions issued by the Central Government and submission of proof of payment within 60 days of the date of clearance of the said fertilisers. The petitioner's case is that for the relevant months of June and July 1976, they had made necessary contribution to the pool and had furnished requisite undertaking as required by the exemption notification but by some mischance and for the reasons beyond its control, proof of such payment could not be submitted to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government was inclined to extend the time in respect of clearances effected by the petitioner for the period from 1-6-1976 to 31-7-1976 and from 1-10-1976 to 30-11-1976. It becomes obvious that the Central Government in exercise of its power for granting such extension pursuant to Notification dated 12-6-1976 was inclined to cover all clearances of fertilisers made by the petitioner for the period from 1-6-1976 onwards upto 30-11-1976. However, when we turn to the order at Annexure E, it appears that by some mischance or clerical error, the clearances as effected in September 1976 are not specifically mentioned though the entire period from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976 is mentioned. It becomes obvious that what was intended by the Central Govern ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom 1-6-1976 onwards upto 30-11-1976 and within that span of time, September 1976 clearances would necessarily be included. 5. In our view, the aforesaid contention of the learned Advocate of the petitioner is well justified. The learned Advocate for the respondents was not in a position to effectively combat this contention. On a plain reading of para 4 of the revisional order, no doubt is left in our mind that the Central Government had decided to extend the time in exercise of its powers under Notification No. 108/74 read with Notification No. 191/76 to cover proof of payment to the fertilisers pool equalisation fund in connection with clearances of fertilisers effected by the petitioner from 1-6-1976 to 30-11-1976. When extension was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
