Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (4) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... limitation. The Assistant Collector held that they are not entitled to any deduction of FPEC whereas in appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) allowed the deduction of Rs. 335/- for the purpose of assessable value. 2. The facts that led to these questions relate entirely to legalities. Briefly these facts are that Notification No. 108/74 (as amended) exempted fertilizer specified therein from so much of duty of excise leviable thereon as these equivalent to the duty calculated on the value specified in the corresponding entry in column 3 of the table annexed to the notification. There is no dispute that the respondents manufactured Urea and the levy of exemption is Rs. 610/- per M.T. The notification is to apply to only those ma .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ued a show cause notice and after due process held that as no notification was issued by the Ministry of Finance, the directions issued by the Ministry of Agriculture were not binding. The respondents were not entitled to any deduction on account of FPEC during the relevant period. The respondent also pleaded before him that as there was an approved price list allowing the deduction, the demand would be time-barred, being beyond the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 10. He rejected this argument holding that for claiming the concession the respondent should have claimed the same on the classification list and not on the price list. 4. The Collector (Appeals) held that the appellants had a case both on merits and on limitation. In hi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -1975 long after issue of Notification No. 178/75, dated 8-8-1975. He submitted that if the legal position as seen by the Assistant Collector and explained by the JCDR is correct and there was an error or mis-construction in interpreting of the notification resulting in mis-construction thereof. Secondly only Rule 10 has to be applied and only normal period of limitation thereunder would apply. He further submitted that Government of India consists of several Ministries including the Ministry of Agriculture and as far as possible the respondents are concerned with an order issued by Ministry of Agriculture has equal force. He also argued that Notification No. 178/75 was a clarificatory nature and, therefore, had retrospective effect. In eac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the respondents. On the other hand it is clear that they acted under a bona fide belief that what they were doing was correct. They cannot be blamed for this. However, at the appropriate time (show cause notice was issued on 16-5-1975) only normal limitation under Rule 10 Central Excise Rules read with Rule 173J thereof namely one year was available. The alternate rule under which the demand could be made and was made is Rule 10A. In the circumstances, as discussed by us, there was an error or mis-construction in respect of understanding the Notification No. 178/75 on the part of the respondents and, at the relevant time, on the part of the Department also. Therefore, Rule 10A cannot be applied in this case. Only Rule 10 was available a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication has been issued by the Ministry of Finance, Clause 2 of the notification refers to directions issued by Central Government. This direction naturally would not be from Ministry of Finance, Central Government but from Ministry of Agriculture. We have on file Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation notification G.S.R. 418(E) New Delhi, dated 18th July, 1975 synchronising with the telegraphic direction issued by Ministry of Agriculture. The exemption under the notification is available, as already referred to above, on producing sufficient proof to the satisfaction of the proper officer of credit of the amount within 60 days from the date of clearance. Before this 60 days expired, the amending Notification No. 178/75 had been issued on 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates