1987 (2) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l of this appeal are that the appellant manufactures aluminum wire rods out of duty paid E.C. grade aluminum ingots on job basis on behalf of various customers. Between September 1974 and May 1977 it received a sum of more than 6 lakh rupees from customers by issue of debit notes over and above the amounts received under regular invoices. The Excise Authorities came across 966 such debit notes and on the basis thereof called upon the appellant to show cause why that amount which was said to be handling charges should not be added to the invoice price and differential duty thereupon be recovered. The Revenue took the stand that there was suppression of information on the part of the appellant with regard to collection of handling charges and....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tonne collected as handling charges could be added for computation of duty. 3. Two contentions are advanced in support of the appeal : firstly, Rs.60/- which was collected as handling charges was not to be taken into account for computing duty and secondly, the notice dated 13th of October, 1978 had been issued more than a year after the last date of the period in question and was barred by limitation. Prior to 6.8.1977, Rule 9 which corresponds to Section 11-A of the Act provided a period of one year for taking of proceedings while Rule 10 corresponding to the present Section 11 of the Act prescribed a period of 3 months for such purpose. With effect from 6.8.1977, when the rules were amended, the period of six months was substituted f....