9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Rule 173PP(10) of the CE Rules as in force at the time duty demanded for the period prior to 1-7-1977 was not sustainable and was hit by the time limit. He supported the demand for the period after 1-7-1977. 2. Rule 173PP(10) required that the duty on item 68 goods would be assessed at the close of the accounting year followed by the assessee on the basis of their return submitted by him in sub-rule (9) and that the officer, after making such checks as he deems fit, may make debit or credit entries in the account current of any duty that has fallen short or is in excess of the amount payable. It further provides that the provisions of rule 10 and 11 would apply so that the words six months or five years in Rule 10 and in Rule 11 shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of manufacturing stranded steel wires. This would mean that there had been no suppression to bring in the longer time limit. Furthermore the Assistant Collector himself did not proceed as if there had been any fraudulent suppression of vital facts, although he says there was such a suppression : he does not impose any penalty as he ought to have done, had vital facts been withheld and suppressed to cause loss of duty. This brings us to one difficulty in following the Collector (Appeals) orders regarding the duty to be recovered. 5. Rule 173PP(10) as it stood at the time allows for a period of 6 months from the close of the accounting year followed by assessee which in this case would be 30th June. Since there was no suppression in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Collector to fall within time. However, if the Collector took one year to be the time limit, then 1-7-1977 Would be the correct dividing date, because when the show cause notice was issued on 27-3-1979, one year can reach back to the beginning of the accounting year ended on 30-6-1978; this year began on 1-7-1977. 7. But as we have said, the time limit, at the time of issue of the show cause notice, was six months, not one year, from the close of the financial year. And whether, it is one year or six months, the notice of 27-3-1979 will not be operative for the year ended 30-6-1979. 8. Though the two opposing counsels spent little time on the time bar, the above facts dominate all other arguments on merits that they advanced at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
