1982 (2) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... petitioner contends that similar demands had been raised for an earlier period between June, 1977 and 31-12-1978 and the demands were challenged in appeal. The appellate authority, being the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, vacated the demands by decision dated 26-6-1981 in Annexture-l. In regard to furniture, by order dated 20th February, 1981, in terms of review u/s. 35-A(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 the Collector under the Act held that no levy was maintainable. Notwithstanding these decisions, the direction under Annexure 4 has been issued and such demand, therefore, should be quashed. 2. It is not the case of the opposite parties that any changed circumstances, either by amendment of law or factual aspects being....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed by the subordinate revenue authorities and no attempt should be made to wriggle out of the binding decisions of higher authorities as long as they remain in force. The same principle should be applied to the present set of facts and we are, therefore, inclined to take the view that the demand under Annexure-4 should be set aside but we would make it clear that in the event of the appellate orders being vacated, under the Statute the liability would revive and notwithstanding our quashing Annexure-4 the statutory authority would be entitled to raise a demand in terms of the decision which may be ultimately sustained under the Statute. 4. The learned Standing Counsel points out that the demand under the Statute has to be raised within s....