9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to demand notice and assessment orders, exemption notification validity, dismissal of appeal as time-barred, application of Rule 10A for incomplete assessment, calculation of duty difference, appeal disposal on merits. Analysis: The petitioner challenged a demand notice and assessment orders along with an exemption notification regarding the purchase and sizing of cotton yarn. The authorities issued a demand notice after a test revealed the yarn's count was above 40.00, leading to the assessment of duty difference. The appeal to the Collector was dismissed as time-barred, but it was found that the appeal was sent within the limitation period via registered post. The court held that the appeal was wrongly rejected on the ground of limitation, and the orders were quashed. The matter was remanded to the Collector for disposal of the appeal on merits. Regarding the application of Rule 10A for incomplete assessment, the court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the rule's scope in cases of incomplete assessment. The assessment of duty on the yarn was considered tentative until the test results were obtained, justifying the demand for duty difference based on the yarn count exceeding 40.00. The authorities correctly applied Rule 10A, which required further duty payment for sized yarn with a count of 40 or more. The calculation of duty difference was based on the rates specified in the Table columns, and the excise authorities were deemed correct in recovering the difference. The court found no merit in other legal contentions raised, apart from the issue of the appeal's dismissal as time-barred. It was clarified that the appeal was within the limitation period and should be considered on its merits. The petition was allowed, quashing the orders in appeal and revision, and directing the Collector to dispose of the pending appeal promptly. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs, considering the circumstances of the case.
|
