1979 (2) TMI 105

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., more so when a heirarchy has been constituted. The effective argument of Mr. Dolia which merits acceptance in my view is when there is total lack of jurisdiction there is no reason why the petitioner should be called upon to answer a show cause notice, which on the face of it shows lack of jurisdiction. What he means by this argument is, originally levy was sought to be made under Rule 10 A. But that levy was set aside by the Collector on appeal. However, strangely he directed proceedings to be taken under Rule 9(2) to collect the differential levy, Rule 9(2) cannot be invoked in cases where the removal was with the consent and knowledge of the department. In the instant case, it is not denied that there was no clandestine removal. On the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aying duty on such packing and wrapping paper used internally at the same rate as was applicable to the packed contents of paper. 2. As this procedure was considered to be incorrect the Inspector of Central Excise Komarapalayam issued show cause notices No. 1/72, dated 4-5-1972 and No. 3/72, dated 10-7-1972, calling upon them to show cause why the packing and wrapping paper cleared for packing, printing and writing paper not exceeding 75 GSM, viz., 407698 Kg. during the period from 27-7-1970 to 31-3-1972, and 53033 Kg. during the period from 1-4-1972 to 31-5-1972 should not be assessed at 45 paise per Kg. as applicable to packing and wrapping paper instead of at the rate of 15 paise less 3.3 paise as applicable to printing and writing pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... there is no doubt, that the wrapping paper and its contents are to be assessed separately as they fall under different sub-items of the Tariff, but involving Rule 10A in demanding the differential duty amount by the lower authority is not valid. As such the Appellate Collector vacated the orders passed and directed for taking fresh action under appropriate rules. 5. Messrs. Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd, Pallipalaym, are hereby required to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise IDO Salem (1) why the differential duty of Rs. 1,00,043.99 and 14.080.26 involved during the period from 27-7-1970 to 31-3-1972, and 1-4-1972 to 31-5-1972 should not be demanded under rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules 1944, vide classification ....