TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (7) TMI 223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t Act, 1944. The corrugated boards, as aforesaid, are manufactured by the appellants out of Kraft Paper [falling under sub-item (2) of item 17] purchased by them directly from manufactures of such paper and on which the appropriate duty of excise has already been paid. By Not fiction 15/78 the effective rate of duty on Kraft Paper in force was specified as 37.5%. But certain class of paper manufacturers were however allowed certain concession under Notifications Nos. 128/78 and 129/78 and the duty was paid at the effective rate of 37.5% less the concession available to them. 2.  the second proviso to Notification No. 46/71 as introduced by Notification No. 14/78 specifies that duty on boards is exempt when made out of paper on which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ove, the rate of duty on the kraft paper remained as 37.5% ad valorem. 5. The Assistant Collector, however, did not accept this contention of the appellants and confirmed the recovery of duty at 5%ad valorem in terms of Notification No. 46/71 as amended by Notification No. 72/76, dated 16-3-1976 for the intervening period 24-1-1978 to 25-8-1978 during which the appellants manufactured corrugated boards/rolls out of less than 37.5% ad valorem duty paid kraft paper and cleared at Nil rate of duty. According to the Assistant Collector the appellants have manufactured corrugated boards/rolls out of less than 37.5% ad valorem duty paid Kraft Paper and cleared at Nil rate of duty. 6. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the demand to a period of six months from the date of receipt of the show cause notice as laid down in Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules. 1944. 8. Not satisfied with the said order passed by the Appellate Collector the appellants filed Revision Application before the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, which stands transferred to this Tribunal under Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to be heard as an appeal. 9. We have heard Shri R.K. Jain, Consultant for the appellants and Mrs. Zutshi, SDR, for the department and gone through the record. 10.Shri Jain, the learned consultant, raised a preliminary objection that neither in the show cause notice nor in the Order-in-Or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification No. 72/76, dated 16-3-1976 for the period 24-1-1978 to 25-8-1978. The Appellate Collector in his impugned order, however, restricted the demand for a period of six months from the date of receipt of the show cause notice. According to her, duty amount ordered to be paid by the appellants can very well be ascertained on the basis of the impugned order and no judicial function is required for this purpose. It does not amount to delegation of judicial function on the subordinate authority. It is only an administrative act which can be done by any subordinate officer. Regarding the case law cited by Shri Jain, the Consultant, she pointed out that if the amount of duty sought to be recovered has not been specifically mentioned in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....delegation but points rather to the conferring of an authority to do things which otherwise that person would have to do himself. It is an administrative act which a subordinate officer can be asked to do in terms of the orders passed by a superior authority. 13. On merits Shri Jain did not argue in view of the various decisions of this Tribunal on this issue. Our attention was drawn towards a decision passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Paper Packaging Pvt. Ltd. & India Packing Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore reported as 1984 (18) E.L.T. 512, wherein after discussing the provisions, of the various notifications concerned and discussing the case law on the point it was held that under pro....