1980 (4) TMI 134

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stitution the petitioners challenge the various orders and demand notices issued by the excise authorities. 3. In M.P. No. 851 of 1974 we are concerned with two periods. The first period is from 1st June, 1968 to 30th June, 1970 and the second period is from 1st July, 1970 to 17th May, 1971. A notice under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules was issued on 4th June, 1971 in respect of the first period making additional demands of tax. This notice is Annexure 1. The notice was served on the petitioner on 8th June, 1970. 4. The first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of the notice Annexure 1 is that in so far as the period prior to 8th June, 1970 the notice was barred by limitation. In our opinion this co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e orders of the Assistant Collector confirming the demands for these periods are Annexures 3 and 4. The petitioners seek quashing of the aforesaid demand notices and the orders in appeal and revision confirming these notices in this petition. 6. A perusal of the notices and the various orders impugned in these petitions go to show that the petitioners were allowed part exemption from payment of duty to the extent of Rs. 22 per metric tonne. This grant of part exemption was presumably under Notification No. 125/66-C.E., dated 6th August, 1968 as amended by Notification No. 198/67-C.E., dated 9th September, 1967. The petitioner's claim for complete exemption which was allowed to them at the time of removal of the goods was not accepted in th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ur opinion, there was no basis for making any such distinction in application of different notifications. The words 'has been paid' as used in these notifications do not in our opinion mean "actually paid" but only mean 'ought to have been paid'. The raw materials used by the petitioners for re-rolling were not manufactured by them. The obligation to pay the appropriate amount of excise duty on the raw materials rested on the manufacturers of those raw materials. If the manufacturers had not paid the appropriate amount of duty the excise authorities should have recovered the duty from them. A purchaser has no control over the manufacturer in respect of his act relating to the payment of duty on the goods manufactured. Having regard to the s....