TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared, in the declarations which those owners were required to furnish the appellants, processors in terms of notification 305/77. The contention by the advocate for the appellant in this regard is that any such misdeclaration was made, not by the appellant, but by the person who sent the gray fabrics. This is what the Collector has recorded. The only allegation against the appellant in this regard is that the appellant failed to receive and/or ascertain the correct value. Therefore, he says, the extended period contained under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A would not apply and the entire demand on this count therefore cannot be sustained. There is no allegation in the notice, or finding by the Collector, that the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The first aspect, it is explained, arises because fabrics some times shrink in the course of processing. The duty is on ad valorem rate per square metres. The assessable value is determined by the total assessable value of the length or lot by the length of the finished fabrics. Where the fabric showing, the cost per square metre of the finished fabrics would therefore correspondingly be higher without including any of the other elements involved in the costing. This, it is alleged, has not been done. Advocate for the appellant has not denied the factual correctness of this inclusion. He however opposes the demand for duty on the ground that the extended period will not be available. The lot register showed in each case the extent of shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This is a misreading of the proviso under Section 11A(1). The proviso makes the extended period applicable in those cases where there has been a short levy or non-levy by reasons of any of the facts (suppression etc) specified in that proviso. The duty payable on element of the value comprising the cost of the gray fabrics (which was misdeclared by the senders) was not paid, not because of any misdeclaration by the appellant. This argument therefore would not apply and extended period would not be available for recovery of this duty now. 8.After coming to this conclusion, the matter has to be remanded to the Commissioner to determine the actual duty payable. According to the notification in force, the duty payable varied according to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
