9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (9) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification with effect from 19-6-1980. The differential duty demanded from the appellant relates to clearances effected between 19-6-1980 to 31-3-1981. The appellants plea is that at the material time they paid the correct duty and the entire production of this factory was supplied to units nominated by Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC). He further submitted that if he knew in advance that if his production exceeded 150 million matches in the year he would be liable to pay higher rate of duty, he would have restricted his production so as to stay in the lower duty slab. In addition to this argument which was reiterated by the learned Advocate for the appellants, Shri Vinod Sethi, it was also submitted that the demand is tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the opposition of Shri Chakraborty to the introduction of this ground. But as without this ground the appellant straightaway loses his appeal and also considering that the appellant is only a small manufacturer in a remote part of the country and not familiar with the legal requirements, we feel that it will be injustice not to allow this additional ground of limitation. We, therefore, allow it. 5. In Bharat Match Works and Others (supra) the Madras High Court was examining the same notification namely 22/82-C.E. in respect of another match factory. The High Court in that judgment held that the Notification No. 22/82 was valid and that promissory estoppel cannot be availed of against Statute. The Court upheld the demand raised a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ignored or not. In our view Section 51 does not, in any manner, affect the provision of Section 11A of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision overriding Section 11A, it will be consistent with rules of harmonious construction to hold that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 insofar as it gives retrospective effect to the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules, is subject to the provision of Section 11 A. 8. The view of the Supreme Court is quite clear as can be seen above. There is no specific provision in Section 52 of the Finance Act, 1982 or in Notification No. 22/82 enabling the Excise authorities to make any demand beyond the periods mentioned in Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 9. In the circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
