1988 (1) TMI 234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ollector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay. 2..  Today the aforesaid stay applications were listed for hearing. The appeals were not listed for hearing. After hearing both sides, we decided with the consent of both the sides to take up the appeals themselves for disposal. 3.  Shri S. J. Vyas, Chartered Accountant of the appellants firm, contended that when they filed the RT-12 returns for months of Oct. 86 and Dec. 86, the Supdt. of the Range made an endorsement or the assessment memorandum directing them to pay an amount of Rs. 83,910.00 in respect of RT-12 of Oct. 86 and Rs. 16,152.38 in respect of RT-12 for Dec. 86. The said endorsement was cryptic and without mentioning any grounds for making the debit. Shri Vyas also ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned orders holding the appeals are time-barred. 4.  Shri Mondal contended that in this case no demand notice has been issued and hence there is no need to consider the stay applications. When he was specifically asked as to whether the department agrees that there is no enforceable demand against the appellants on this ground. Shri Mondal conceded that the amounts have been quantified in the assessment memorandum. Shri Mondal stated that the assessment orders even according to appellants were received on 9-7-1987 and they have posted the appeals on 9-10-1987, the last date for filing the appeals. They have not taken due diligence and proper care to ensure that the appeals are filed in time. 5.  After hearing both the s....