9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (4) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A.K. Raghavendra Rao, Advocate for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following. 3. This is an appeal by the Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore against the Order-in-Appeal No. V/34/1/82, dated 9-6-1982 against the Order No. V/34/3/186/79-MP-III, dated 22-2-1982 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Mysore Division. In his original order the Assistant Collector required M/s. Karnataka Scooters Ltd., Somanahally to pay a sum of Rs. 1,36,906.18 being the Central Excise duty short-paid by them during the period August, 1977 to April, 1978, February, 1979 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort-paid was not debited by the respondent in the Personal Ledger Account. Thereupon the Superintendent of Central Excise, I.D.O. Mysore issued a show cause notice under C. No. V/34/3/139/79-M.P.II, dated 24-5-1979 to the respondent referring to demands raised in terms of Rule 173(I)(2) in the respective monthly R.T. 12 returns submitted by the assessee (respondent) in terms of Rule 173G(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and calling upon the respondent to show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise as to why the demand raised by the Superintendent of Central Excise, M.O.R. Mandya and R.B.C. Units, Mysore should not be confirmed, as the correct procedure in availing of the concession in Notification No. 198/76 had not been fol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant s contention before us is that the decision of the Superintendent indicating short-payment of duty which requires to be made good by the respondent is not hit by any provision of limitation under the Act or the Rules. 5. The Senior Departmental Representative explained the basic scheme of assessment under the Self Removal Procedure and pointed out that when an R.T. 12 return is filed by the respondent in terms of Rule 173G(3), the proper officer makes an order of assessment under Rule 173(1). In terms of Rule 173(I)(2) where the duty so assessed (by the proper officer) is more than the duty determined and paid by the assessee, the assessee shall pay the deficiency by making a debit in the account current within 10 days of recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h short-payment can be recovered from him. 7. The correct legal position in respect of situation like this prior to the introduction of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 has already been settled by the Madras High Court in the case of Binny Ltd., Madras v. Superintendent of Central Excise, Group XIV, Guindy, Madras and another 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J65) (Mad.) = 1979 Tax L.R. 2440 (Madras High Court) at page 2445. In that case his Lordship has observed : Any payment or collection of tax made on the basis of returns submitted under the self-removing procedure cannot be construed as a complete assessment and, as long as a completed assessment had not taken place there is no necessity for the department to resort to its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
