1987 (12) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat though the papers were handed over to the Consultant in time he could not prepare the appeal and file the same in time as he fell ill and prepared the appeal and filed the same immediately after recovery. 2.  Notice dated 16-6-1982 was issued to the appellants M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills, that while they paid duty at 15% ad valorem on the removals during April and May 1980, in terms of Notification No. 70/76-C.E., dated 16-8-1976, they had charged from the buyers duty at 30% ad valorem and hence the assessable value has to be reworked and, on such enhanced assessable value, demand was being raised for the differential amount. The notice called upon them to show cause why the demand should not be confirmed. On adjudication the demand....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... returns for the months of April 1980 and May 1980 the fact of collection of duty at 30% from the customers had not been disclosed. Shri Gopal Prasad in this connection submitted that the sales had been in accordance with the approved price list and, therefore, there had been no collection from the customers of duty at 30%. As earlier noted Shri Gopal Prasad at the commencement submitted that he would advance arguments on the question of limitation only. He had, therefore, at that stage not chosen to dispute the factual basis on which the demand for differential duty was raised. In addition, we may note that the factual assertion in the show cause notice that duty had been collected from the customers at 30%, though duty was paid at 15% onl....