1989 (9) TMI 271 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Department could raise a demand in RT 12 return in the given circumstances.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The respondents started paying duty at a reduced rate of 10% instead of 20% as per an order-in-appeal in their favor. The Revenue authorities began demanding differential duty on RT 12 returns filed by the respondents. The Collector (Appeals) held that the Department could not demand duty at a higher rate in the present RT-12 assessment, as the matter was pending before CEGAT. The Superintendent's failure to raise the demand on the RT-12 for February 1986 was not a valid reason to demand the differential duty. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore contended that the respondents were not entitled to the benefit of a specific notification, and the assessment of the RT 12 return was incorrect. The Department argued that pending the Tribunal's decision, there was no bar to raising the demand on the RT 12 returns.

The issue before the Tribunal was whether the Collector (Appeals)' decision to disallow the Department from raising a demand in the RT 12 return was valid. The RT 12 return is crucial for verifying the duty paid goods' removal and ensuring correct duty payments. The dispute was not about the duty payment's correctness but about the eligibility for a lower rate of assessment. The Tribunal noted that the benefit of the lower rate was approved by the Collector (Appeals) and the assessee had paid accordingly. The RT 12 return cannot be used to claim differential duty when the duty payment was made as per approved classification and price list. The Superintendent's decision not to raise the demand on RT 12 was upheld as correct in law. The Collector (Appeals) rightly decided not to interfere, as the authorities could have raised a demand under Section 11A to preserve the right for recovery if the final decision went against them. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's plea and rejected the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals)' decision that the Department could not raise a demand for differential duty in the RT 12 return due to the pending matter before CEGAT and the correct payment made by the assessee as per the approved classification and price list. The RT 12 return cannot substitute the demand under Section 11A, and the Superintendent's action was deemed correct in law.