1985 (8) TMI 198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e goods which were being assessed under Item 27(e) was in dispute and payment had been made under protest or assessment made provisional. However in so far as goods under Item 68 were concerned there was no dispute. The value of the goods assessed under Item 68 during 1980-81 was Rs. 23,12,361.81 and those under Item 27(e) was Rs. 19,62,135.99, both totalling Rs. 42,74,502.80. During the year 1981-82 the value of the goods assessable under Item 68 (excluding those which were being assessed under Item 27(e) was Rs. 18,07,980.59. As the respondent was manufacturing and clearing goods assessable under Item No. 27(e), he had been licensed. He also filed regular RT 12 during the various months of the years 1980-81 and 1981-82. On the basis that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Excise (Appeals), that authority found that the demand has to be examined with reference to the time limit stipulated under Section 11 A of the Act and not with reference to any notional date. He did not accept the view of the Assistant Collector that with the date of making of refund in respect of goods originally assessed under Item 27(e) but later brought under Item 68 say, the date for purposes of levy of duty in respect of the goods initially classified under Item 68 and cleared free of duty during the year 1981-82 got shifted. He thus found that demand was enforceable only for clearances during January, 1982 and the demand for the rest of the period was barred by limitation. The present appeal is against this order of the Collector (A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....82 it was accepted as entitled to such free clearances. The fact that on a later determination the status of these goods changed does not by itself justify the issue of less charge claim basing the period of limitation from the date when the later decision was given effect to by means of refund orders. 4. We have considered the arguments of both sides. Section 11A no doubt provides that when duty or other sums are payable to Central Government, an officer empowered by Central Board of Excise and Customs may deduct the amount so payable from any money owing to the person from whom such sum may be recoverable or due which may be in his hand or under his disposal or control. In the present case; for one thing the determination that sum....