1988 (9) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Government on 23-2-1982 giving retrospective effect to the Notification with effect from 19-6-1980. The differential duty demanded from the appellant relates to clearances effected between 19-6-1980 to 31-3-1981. The appellants' plea is that at the material time they paid the correct duty and the entire production of this factory was supplied to units nominated by Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). He further submitted that if he knew in advance that if his production exceeded 150 million matches in the year he would be liable to pay higher rate of duty, he would have restricted his production so as to stay in the lower duty slab. In addition to this argument which was reiterated by the learned Advocate for the appellants, Shri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion is whether Section 11A would apply to the demand or not. We have considered the opposition of Shri Chakraborty to the introduction of this ground. But as without this ground the appellant straightaway loses his appeal and also considering that the appellant is only a small manufacturer in a remote part of the country and not familiar with the legal requirements, we feel that it will be injustice not to allow this additional ground of limitation. We, therefore, allow it. 5. In Bharat Match Works and Others (supra) the Madras High Court was examining the same notification namely 22/82-C.E. in respect of another match factory. The High Court in that judgment held that the Notification No. 22/82 was valid and that promissory estoppel can....