AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (8) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t appeals) filed appeals before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay claiming that they were liable to payment of lower rate of duty. The Collector by his consolidated order dispatched on 5-4-1980 accepted the appellants plea and partly allowed the respondents, appeals. Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue purporting to act under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter the Act) issued notices dated 13-8-1981 to the present respondents and also to M/s. Thomson Press calling upon them to show cause why findings of the appellate authority be not set aside or modified and such order as the Government deem fit be not passed (a copy of the show cause notice is not available in the file of M/s. Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills, but the same is available in the case of M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills). In the case of M/s. Thomson Press, it was earlier given out that the show cause notice was wrongly issued and the appeal has been disposed of accordingly. During arguments, it was given out that in the case of M/s. Modi Spinning Mills no duty has been paid by this respondent and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the respondent M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills Ltd. adopted the arguments of Sh. Ravindra Narain, learned Advocate for M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. He however submitted a new argument in support of the plea that the Show Cause Notice was time-barred. The argument is that Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 no more exist in the Statute Book, as a completely new chapter has been substituted in place of the old chapter. The present proceedings are an appeal before the Tribunal and the time limit provided for an appeal would be applicable to the show cause notice. The time-limit is 3 months and this would be applicable to the show cause notice. The show cause notice is therefore completely time-barred. He however added that it was open to the Tribunal to condone the delay in issue of show cause notice which is now an appeal before the Tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the case. His argument thus in short is that the time-limit provided for an appeal under sub-section (3) of Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 as substituted by Finance Act, 1980 should be retrospectively applied to the present show cause notice. In support of his argument, Sh. M.A. Rangaswamy, le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the present show-cause notice which has been transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as an appeal presented before it. Sh. Rangaswamy's argument overlooks the provision contained in subsection (2) of Section 131-B, which provides that every proceeding which is pending immediately before the appointed day before the Central Government under Section 131 as it stood immediately before the day and any matter arising out of or connected with such proceedings and which is so pending shall stand transferred on that day to the appellate Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal may proceed with such proceedings or matter from the stage on which it was on that day as if such proceeding or matter were an appeal filed before it. Having regard to these express words about the Appellate Tribunal proceeding with such proceedings or matters from the stage at which it was on that day i.e. 11-10-1982 before the Central Government, there is no question of applying retrospectively the limitation provided for an appeal in sub-section (3) of Sec. 129A of the Customs Act, 1962. We do not accept Sh. Ramgaswamy's argument. 7. Taking up first the case of M/s. Bharat Vijay Mills, admitted posit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1962, talks only of levy and not of collection of duty as does the Central Excises and Salt Act and rules made thereunder cannot also be accepted because even though in Section 12 of the Customs Act the word 'collection' may not have been used, we find that the Act makes elaborate provision for 'assessment' and 'collection' of duty. To us it appears that for the purposes of sub-section (5) of Section 131 of the Customs Act, 1962 as it then existed the words not levied or short levied should be interpreted to mean nil duty assessment or short assessment of duty excluding however a case of erroneous refund. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt that the order which is sought to be revised would be clearly a case of short-levy because there is no dispute that there is an order of assessment under Section 17 of Customs Act and this would result in short duty being collected from the respondent M/s. Modi Spinning & Weaving Mills. It is immaterial whether the assessment to duty is in respect of goods entered for home consumption under Section 46 or for warehousing under Section 68 of the Customs Act. "Assessment" under the Customs Act [vide S.2(2)] "includes provisional assessment, reasse....