9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (7) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther orders dated 11-3-1980 the Collector confirmed further demands for duty but did not impose any further penalty in view of the penalty already imposed under order dated 13-12-1979. The issue in all these matters related to the classification of the cutting dies and cutting discs manufactured by the respondents which they claimed fell under Item 68 CET. The Collector observed that the goods fell under Item 51A(iv) CET and that though the Company had been informed about such a classification under an earlier order of the Assistant Collector and had been directed not to remove the goods except under the said classification they had chosen to ignore the same and had been removing the goods without payment of duty. It is in view of the above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... preliminary objection that the review notice of the Central Govt. was barred by limitation since the same is governed by the 2nd proviso to Section 36(2). In support of his contention he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Ashok Kumar Shiv Kumar (1986 Vol. 26 E.L.T. 947). When it was pointed out to him that the objection may be valid with reference to orders dated 11-3-1980 under both of which demands for duty alone were confirmed but may not be wholly valid with reference to the order dated 13-12-1979 under which apart from confirming demands for duty the Collector had imposed penalty also, Shri Chandrasekharan conceded that in respect of the said matter the bar of limitation may not apply so far as that portion of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent proceedings having arisen out of a review notice issued by the Central Govt., it is only the objections raised by the Central Govt. under that notice to the validity of the order of the Central Board that alone could be gone into and no other ground than had been set forth in the notice of the Govt. could be allowed to be urged on behalf of the Govt. His submission was that the Deptt. should not be allowed to now raise any objection regarding the validity of the order of the Central Board on the basis that the Central Board was not entitled to, and had no jurisdiction to, go into the question of proper classification in view of the absence of any appeal against the earlier order of the Assistant Collector on the question of classificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds would arise since such a right is specifically conferred under the statute which provides for the right of appeal or the values thereunder. We are satisfied that no such right could be claimed by the department in proceedings initiated under Section 36 (and received on transfer), since, as earlier noted, it is only the grounds that compelled the Central Govt. to issue the notice that would be relevant in the transferred proceedings also and no further grounds could be pressed into service in questioning the legality of the order under consideration. The Central Govt. did not, in its notice, question the correctness or legality of the order of the Central Board on the ground that the Central Board had no jurisdiction to go into the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ather or rubber sheet to be processed and applying pressure, the leather or rubber sheet is cut into the required shape and that the product is then moved manually and the process repeated until the entire sheet is used up for cutting therefrom the pieces of the required shape. It is the case for the respondents that these products are not fitted to any tools and that the movement thereof over the leather or rubber sheet is manual. The order of the Board on the question of classification is cryptic and gives no reasons for its conclusions. It reads as follows : "On an inspection of the samples produced at the personal hearing and various submissions of the appellants, the Board accepts the contention of the appellants that the goods in que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review notice dated 15-2-1982 is discharged and this appeal is dismissed. [Per : G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President]. - I have carefully perused the Order proposed by learned Brother Raghavachari. 12. On the question discussed in para 5 of Shri Raghavachari's order, I would like to say a few words. The Central Government had the necessary power under Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as it stood at the material time, to go into the question of the correctness, propriety or legality of the Board's order. It could certainly have called upon the respondent to show cause why the Board's order should not be set aside as not being correct, proper or legal inasmuch as the Collector's order had not gone into the question of proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
