9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion No. 141/72. It is the case of the appellants that all samples drawn by them are covered and the Revenue insists that they are not. 2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Bombay in her order held that during the period 26-10-1978 to 31-10-1981 the appellants cleared more than one sample of tyre at a time taking them to 3 different departments of their laboratory for testing purposes and that therefore the exemption availed by them on the quantities of tyres etc. cleared in excess of the quantities specified in the said Notification was irregular. She held that condition (i) to the Notification was not fulfilled rendering the appellants liable to pay duty on the same. Besides, demanding duty on those tyres held not to be eligibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o a classification List No. 10(Ty) and 11 (Ty) both dated 2-4-1976 approved and forwarded by the Superintendent under a letter dated 3-4-1976. He further submitted that there were two show cause notices dated 30-10-1980 (for the period 26-10-1978 to 31-12-1979) and dated 31-12-1981 (for the period 1-1-1980 to 31-10-1981) and submitted that except for a period of 4 months in the second show cause notice the entire demand was barred by limitation. He argued that as there was no allegation of suppression in the show cause notice only normal period of limitation was available. In this context, the learned Advocate relied upon : 1984 ECR 645 (Bombay) [M/s. The Calcutta Silk Mfg. Company Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, (Appeal) Unit III ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. More than one sample drawn in a day is not reasonable quantity. At best the appellants could claim one tyre per batch and certainly not the large numbers as was done by them. 6. Arguing that the show cause notices were within the period of limitation, the Ld. JDR submitted that all the RT-12 assessments were provisional, as at the relevant time, a court case was pending in the Supreme Court and the assessment was deemed to be provisional. Alternatively Shri Sunder Rajan argued that a stray classification list filed long before the relevant period could not be taken as being in force at the appropriate time. It should be held that at the material time there was no valid classification list. The ld. JDR relied upon 1985 (20) E.L.T. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants the Department held that these words meant one day . We have carefully examined the words as such and we do not consider that proviso (i) to the Notification can be given the meaning that only one tyre of any sort can be drawn on any one day. There is no reason or evidence of legislative intention for such an interpretation. If the legislature wanted to restrict the number of samples in the manner the Department now desires, the Notification would have simply said one day instead of at any one time . The Notification in question contains plain language and does not need any interpretation. The legislative intent has to be deduced from the language used. Going by the language of the Notification we hold that the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
