1988 (7) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t by an error the department, instead of demanding duty on steel melting scrap generated during the manufacture of steel ingots, wrongly included demand for duty on ingots also. It appears that the Departmental Representative corresponded with the Collector and the Collector confirmed the error which was noted by him with regret. 2. The question involved is whether the demand for duty on scrap generated during the manufacture of steel ingots is sustainable. Shri Nigam gave detailed arguments as to why the Collector (Appeals) was wrong in passing the impugned order. We are not going into the detailed reasons given by him for reasons which will be clear in the next few paragraphs. 3. Shri Mookherjee, the learned Advocate for the respondent ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tment even though in the Cross-Objection the respondents specifically raised a ground that the demands are time-barred. We note that it is true that the RT 12's were not filed by the appellants. 8. All the same we examine the question as to whether, if demands were raised on RT 12 returns and a show cause notice was issued subsequently beyond the period of limitation, whether the demands would be valid. Shri Nigam relied upon an order of the Tribunal (Order No. 650/87-B1, dated 29th September, 1987 in Appeal No. 1099/83-Bl) M/s. Saroj Alloys & Steel Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. In that matter it was argued by the appellants that endorsements made in RT 12 returns were not enough (for the purpose of demand for duty) becau....