9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (8) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that clearance during the financial year did not exceed 150 million matches. There were certain other stipulations also but these are not material for resolution of the dispute before us. The above notification was given retrospective effect on and from 19-6-1980 by Clause 52 of the Finance Bill, 1982 (later Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982). The Superintendent of Central Excise accordingly reviewed past assessments of duty on matches cleared by the appellant-factory and concluded that the appellant was not entitled to the concessional rate of duty during the period from April 1981 to March 1982. A Notice dated 9-8-1982 was issued by the Superintendent to the appellant asking it to show cause why a sum of Rs. 59,348.50 being the diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal representative for the respondent. 4. Shri Sachar s contention is that the limitation in Section 11A is to be computed with reference to the date the appellant became liable to pay the duty. The submission is with reference to the definition of relevant date as contained in Section 11(3)(ii)(a)(c) - [in any other case, the date on which the duty is to be paid under the Act or the rule made thereunder]. The appellant came under the notification dated 23-2-1982 and, with reference to this Notification, he became liable to pay the duty on 23-2-1982 and that limitation would run from this date. 5. Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982 and Notification No. 22/82, dated 23-2-1982, were challenged by a number of match manufacturers before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finance Act, 1982, which is the provision relevant to the case before us. The Court observed in Para 28 of the Report as follows :- 28. In our view, Rules 9 and 49 must be deemed to have been enacted in the rules from 1945. This would mean that duty had to be levied and collected in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules from 1945. Section 51 of the Finance Act does no more than this, besides making the penal provisions inapplicable for past transactions. It does not touch any of the other provisions of the Act or the rules. This means, that levy, collection, assessment of penalties etc. would all have to be done in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the rules as in force from time to time. Prior to the enfor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A have to be given full effect to. As the show cause notice makes it abundantly clear, what was being sought to be recovered from the appellants was differential duty. It may not perhaps be correct to call this a case of short levy for there is no dispute that duty was paid at the time of clearance correctly at the prevalent rate. The notification dated 23-2-1982, read with Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982, created, as it were, liability to pay duty at the rate laid down in the notification even in respect of the past period (subject of course, to the limitation in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act). This differential duty could, therefore, be more appropriately called non-levy, for non-levy it was in terms of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
