1983 (4) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate ruling on Central Excise duty demand clarifies assessment process and time limits.

The Appellate Collector upheld the demand for payment of Central Excise duty short-paid by a company due to incorrect calculation methods. The judgment ... Demand - Recovery of Short payment Issues:- Appeal against Central Excise duty short-paid by the respondent.- Applicability of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.- Time limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.- Natural justice considerations in case of short-payment recovery.- Legal position prior to the introduction of Section 11A.- Necessity of formal notice for classification under Rule 173(1).Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise against an order requiring a company to pay Central Excise duty short-paid during specific periods. The company had been deducting duty paid on Internal Combustion Engines when calculating duty payable on scooters manufactured, resulting in alleged short-payment. The Superintendent of Central Excise noticed the discrepancy and issued a show cause notice. The Assistant Collector then ordered the company to pay the short-paid duty. The company appealed, challenging the applicability of Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which was allegedly deleted by that time.The Appellate Collector upheld the demand, stating that the omission of a correct rule in the notice does not invalidate the proceedings. The Collector argued that the decision indicating short-payment of duty was not time-barred under the Act or Rules. The Senior Departmental Representative explained the assessment procedure under the Self Removal Procedure, emphasizing the liability to pay the difference between assessed and paid duty. The company contended that natural justice required notice and a formal decision before recovering the short-payment amount.The legal position pre-Section 11A was clarified by the Madras High Court, stating that a completed assessment is necessary before recovering short-levied duty surcharges. The judgment concluded that a formal order after the Superintendent's endorsement on the R.T. 12 was unnecessary, rendering the invocation of Rule 10 and Section 11A redundant. The need for a formal notice for classification under Rule 173(1) was also addressed, emphasizing the company's obligation to comply with the duty payment within ten days of receipt of the order.In summary, the judgment delves into the intricacies of Central Excise duty payment, the applicability of rules and sections, time limitations, natural justice considerations, and the necessity of formal notices for classification. The legal positions pre and post-Section 11A were compared, leading to the setting aside of certain orders and directives for the company to comply with duty payment obligations.