TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (8) TMI 290
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... already paid. The appellants claim that under bona fide impression that no excise duty was payable on pipes and tubes manufactured from the imported stainless steel strips, plates and sheets on which countervailing duty had already been paid, they did not pay duty till March, 1975. After introduction of Tariff Item 68 in Central Excise Tariff from 1st March, 1975 covering all goods not elsewhere specified, the appellants felt that pipes and tubes manufactured by them would be liable to duty under Item 68 and approached the Central Excise authorities to issue a licence under Section 6 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). The Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated 3-6-1975 informed the appellants that stainless steel pipes and tubes fall under Item 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff, the appellants should clear the goods only on payment of duty as prescribed under that item and after complying with the rules and regulations. The Superintendent, Central Excise stopped the clearance of appellants' pipes and tubes, as he did not accept the appellants' plea that their manufactured product was eligible for exemption from Central Excise duty by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... records a number of times, the appellants took-up various pleas before the Asstt. Collector denying their liability to pay duty. The Asstt. Collector negativated all the pleas raised by the appellants and by order dated 14-9-1981 vide order-in-original No. 45/MP/81, ordered the appellants to pay Rs. 2,59,571.00 as Central Excise duty for clearance of stainless steel pipes and tubes for the period 1-10-1972 to 31-5-1975. The order was upheld in appeal by Shri B.K. Agarwal, Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay by his order dated 30-3-1983 and hence this appeal to the Tribunal. 5. At the hearing, Shri R.K. Habbu, learned Counsel for the appellants made the following contentions : (i) no notice of demand under Rule 10 or Rule 10A was served on the appellants, the demand was, therefore, illegal; (ii) Rule 10A under which, there was no time-limit was applicable only when Rule 10 was not applicable, in the appellants' case Rule 10 was applicable under which the time-limit was 3 months. The demand made from the appellants was patently hit by time bar; (iii) notice dated 22-12-1975 was only a show cause notice calling upon the appellants to show cause....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. In support of his contentions, he relied on: (i) M/s. N.S. Model Industries v. Union of India, reported in Tax Law Report 1977 NOC 31; (ii) M/s. Goodwil Rubber Works v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin 1983 ECR 504(D) (CEGAT); (iii) Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Mirzapur & Ors. - 1981 E.L.T. 642(D.); and (iv) M/s. J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., - 1978 E.L.T. (J 355). 7. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the parties. The appellants' contention that no notice to show cause for the demand was served on the appellants cannot be accepted because it is admitted position that Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad had served notice dated 22-12-1975 on the appellants to show cause as to why for the period 31-3-1973 to 31-5-1975, Central Excise duty due on the goods at appropriate rate should not be recovered from the appellants. Shri Habbu's contention that this notice cannot be treated as a legal notice of demand cannot be accepted in view of pronouncement of the Supreme Court in J.K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., 1978 E.L.T. (J 355), wherein it has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and negatived. The findings of the Collector were upheld by the Board in its order dated 6-12-1979. It is true that so far as the claim of duty is concerned, the Collector of Central Excise (Shri K.S. Dilipsinhji) in his order dated 22-12-1978 did not pass any order with regard to payment of duty and said that the matter was being handled by the concerned Asstt. Collector, who was to finalise it early. If the Collector of Central Excise passed an order confirming the duty liability of the appellants for specified period and at the appropriate rate, in view of the Delhi High Court judgment referred to above, the amount of duty was only a matter of calculation. The Central Board of Excise & Customs by its order dated 6-12-1979 had already directed the appellants to pay duty as might be assessed by the competent authority. It must be emphasised that all these orders were consequent to notice to show cause dated 22-12-1975 served on the appellants which we have found to be legal and in order. The appellants did not challenge order of the Board though a revision before the Govt. of India or in any other manner. The order, therefore, became final. It is not open to the appellants ....