9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellants contested the demands stating that since the department had not indicated in the classification list submitted by them (the appellants) that Handloom cess was chargeable on the fabrics manufactured, they had not collected the cess from their customers. This plea was not accepted by the Assistant Collector and he confirmed the demands by his order dated 26-11-1981. The appellants thereafter moved the Collector of Central Excise, Meerut for revision of the Assistant Collector s Order under Section 35A(2) (as it stood then) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Collector rejected the application observing that the fact that cess was not included in the classification list would not absolve the appellants from the liability to p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... who shall, unless otherwise directed by the proper officer, determine the duty payable on the goods intended to be removed in accordance with such list. Evidently, the requirement of approval of the classification list by the proper officer is with a view to safeguarding the interests of the revenue as well as to prevent erroneous assessments. If the assessee was ignorant of the fact that the subject fabrics were liable to be charged with Handloom cess, it is clear that the proper officer who approved the classification list was equally ignorant. There is no dispute that all clearances were in accordance with the approval accorded to the classification list. 6. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 173B provides that if in the list approved by the proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. If the rate of duty as already approved was required to be modified because of the initial mistake in approval, the proper course would appear to have been to make necessary modification in the approved classification list. This also does not seem to have been done. What appears to have happened is that the Superintendent discovered at the time of finalisation of the monthly RT-12 returns that Handloom cess which, in law, was leviable on the goods, had not been levied and he sought to correct this mistake by raising demands for the cess not levied, by appropriate directions noted on the returns. 8. The question, therefore, is whether the action of the Superintendent in raising the demands in the aforesaid manner was correct. It app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
