Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1992 (1) TMI 229

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated 16-3-1976 concessional rates have been provided for straw board cleared by any manufacturer for home consumption during the financial year as follows :- (a) On the first 500 M.T. @ 15% ad valorem. (b) On the next 500 M.T. @ 25% ad valorem. The appellants had been clearing straw board from their factory at Ratlam after paying concessional rate of duty applicable vide the aforesaid notification but on scrutiny of the bills and invoices issued by them to their customers, it was noticed that they have recovered C.E. duty from their customers at the full tariff rate i.e. 40% ad valorem. This excess realisation in the garb of duty by the appellants herein enhanced the assessable value and show cause notices were issued by the departmen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9.28 by the Assistant Collector by his order-in-original No. 16/82 dated 3-3-1982. The appellants herein thereafter filed an application for review of the aforesaid order-in-original under the erstwhile Section 35A of the C.E. & S.A., 1944 before the Collector of Central Excise, Indore within one year but after the statutory period of three months for filing an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) against the order-in original was over. The said Collector without going into the merits of the application rejected it on the ground that the review application was received after the appeal period was over and the review procedure could not be made use of circumventing the limitation for filing the present appeal before the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... notices would be required to be reissued on an enactment of Rules 9 and 49 with retrospective effect. Similarly, we feel that there is no cause for reissuing the show cause notices, as urged by the learned advocate for the appellants. 2.2 Another contention of the learned advocate is that the show cause notices in the present case are based on a Press Note and the decision has also been taken on the basis of the Press Note. In other words, he stressed that the adjudicating authority has been guided by the Press Note in arriving at its decision and it is not a case of application of mind by the said adjudicating authority on its own. Therefore, in that light the learned advocate has submitted that the order-in-original passed by the Assi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....personal hearing in respect of other 5 show cause notices referred to in para 7 of the order-in-original. Thus an opportunity to present their case on the plea of time bar has gone by default of the adjudicating authority. Hearing was given only in respect of the show cause notice dated 8-9-1979. In this respect, learned SDR, Shri V.K. Jain reiterates the findings of the original authority. 3. We have given our careful consideration to this plea of the learned advocate. It is true that some show cause notices would be hit either wholly or partly if the limitation of six months is applied but we are of the view that the shorter period of six months stipulated in Section 11A(1) (Rule 10, as it stood earlier) would not apply inasmuch as the....