1983 (7) TMI 323

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itions of this simplified procedure was that they should have to pay the duty on their closing stocks as on 29-2-1976 within 14 days from 1-3-1976 and at the rate in force on 29-2-1976. Thus, the last date available to the appellants for clearing their pre-simplified procedure stocks was 14-3-1976. However, they did not comply with this condition and instead addressed a letter to the Superintendent of Central Excise in the following terms :- "We are unable to remove and pay duty of the goods lying with us as on 29th February ,1976. There is no buyer in the market. "Hence it is requested that the goods will be removed and duty paid as and when there will be buyer in the market." In accordance with their above request, they went on c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....m on 15-3-1976, that the show cause notice or demand ought to have been issued on that day or within one year thereafter which was the time limit allowed under Rule 10 and that the demand issued on 23-8-1978 (received by them on 15-9-1978) was time barred. They added that Notification No. 71-/78-C.E. had been issued for the benefit of the small-scale industry, that this notification did not discriminate between closing stocks and new stocks and that the benefit of this notification could not, therefore, be denied to them. Finally, they stated that the demand confirmed against them for Rs. 2031.66 was excessive as according to their calculation, the amount came to Rs. 1941.86, i.e., there was a difference of Rs. 89.80 because for error of ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of this condition. The duty liability on the pre-simplified procedure stock arose expressly in terms of the provisions of Rule 173RG and not in terms of Rules 9, 9A, 10 or 10A. In view of this express provision of Rule 173RG, it was unnecessary to raise any formal demand or issue a formal show cause notice for enforcing this liability. When the appellants addressed their letter dated 15-3-1976, they acknowledged their liability but only requested for the Department's indulgence for being allowed to discharge their liability in piece-meal. If the Department acquiesced into their request, it does not mean that the appellants' liability under Rule 173RG was erased. It could only mean that the Department agreed to the amount being paid in conve....