1983 (7) TMI 323 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to clear uncleared stock free of duty under Notification No. 71/78-C.E.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of personal hearing.
3. Time bar under Rule 10 for issuance of demand.
4. Calculation error in the demanded amount.

Entitlement to clear uncleared stock free of duty under Notification No. 71/78-C.E.:
The case involved a dispute regarding the appellants' entitlement to remove their uncleared stock as of 31-3-1978 free of duty under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. The appellants argued that the notification did not differentiate between closing and new stocks, thus the benefit should extend to them. However, the Department contended that the appellants were bound by Rule 173RG for duty payment on pre-simplified procedure stocks, and the notification did not override this specific liability. The Tribunal held that the notification could not erase the duty liability created by Rule 173RG, emphasizing the appellants' obligation to pay the outstanding dues.

Violation of principles of natural justice - denial of personal hearing:
During the hearing, the appellants claimed a violation of natural justice as they were not granted a personal hearing by the Appellate Collector. However, they admitted to not requesting one initially. Despite alleging a non-speaking order by the Appellate Collector, the appellants waived their right to press these points and opted for the Tribunal to decide the case on merits. The Tribunal noted the appellants' choice and proceeded with the case evaluation.

Time bar under Rule 10 for issuance of demand:
The appellants argued that the demand issued on 23-8-1978 was time-barred under Rule 10, contending that the duty on closing stocks as of 29-2-1976 should have been demanded by 15-3-1976 or within a year, which was the limit under Rule 10. However, the Department contended that the plea of limitation was not raised earlier and that Rule 173RG mandated duty payment on pre-simplified procedure stocks, not Rule 10. The Tribunal upheld that Rule 173RG governed the duty liability and no formal demand or show cause notice was necessary for its enforcement.

Calculation error in the demanded amount:
The appellants claimed an excessive demand of &8377; 2031.66, arguing for a lesser amount due to a calculation error resulting in &8377; 89.80 difference. The Department pointed out that the appellants did not highlight this error to the authorities. The Tribunal held that as this was a new argument involving stock valuation, it could not be addressed at that stage. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments and upholding the Department's actions.