1988 (4) TMI 193

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....such samples of tyres drawn by the appellants are covered by Notification No. 141/72. It is the case of the appellants that all samples drawn by them are covered and the Revenue insists that they are not. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay in her order held that during the period 26-10-1978 to 31-10-1981 the appellants cleared more than one sample of tyre at a time taking them to 3 different departments of their laboratory for testing purposes and that therefore the exemption availed by them on the quantities of tyres etc. cleared in excess of the quantities specified in the said Notification was irregular. She held that condition (i) to the Notification was not fulfilled rendering the appellants liable to pay duty on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s no approved classification list, the ld. Advocate drew our attention to a classification List No. 10(Ty) and 11 (Ty) both dated 2-4-1976 approved and forwarded by the Superintendent under a letter dated 3-4-1976. He further submitted that there were two show cause notices dated 30-10-1980 (for the period 26-10-1978 to 31-12-1979) and dated 31-12-1981 (for the period 1-1-1980 to 31-10-1981) and submitted that except for a period of 4 months in the second show cause notice the entire demand was barred by limitation. He argued that as there was no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice only normal period of limitation was available. In this context, the learned Advocate relied upon : 1984 ECR 645 (Bombay) [M/s. The Calcutta Si....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntent, according to him, could have been only that bona fide samples should be allowed. More than one sample drawn in a day is not reasonable quantity. At best the appellants could claim one tyre per batch and certainly not the large numbers as was done by them. 6. Arguing that the show cause notices were within the period of limitation, the Ld. JDR submitted that all the RT-12 assessments were provisional, as at the relevant time, a court case was pending in the Supreme Court and the assessment was deemed to be provisional. Alternatively Shri Sunder Rajan argued that a stray classification list filed long before the relevant period could not be taken as being in force at the appropriate time. It should be held that at the material time ....