9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 334X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the charge of mis-declaration of value of the steel drums fabricated by the appellants for M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. The appellants applied to the Central Board of Excise and Customs for revision of the Collector's order under Section 35A. The Member of the Board passed a brief but reasoned order on the note sheet of the revision file on 26-8-1980 to the effect that there was no prima facie case for review and rejected the appellants' application. The Senior Technical Officer of the Board communicated the Board's order in a non-speaking manner to the appellants on 28-8-1980. Thereupon, the appellants filed the instant revision application before the Central Government under the then Section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernative to the Tribunal itself examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the Collector's order. Both sides appreciated this position and addressed their arguments accordingly. 4. We have considered the matter carefully. The genesis of the duty demand is that the appellants fabricated steel drums out of the steel supplied by the customer, M/s. Indian Oil Corporation. The appellants were to get only fabrication charge of Rs. 10/- per drum. It so happened that the price lists filed by the appellants before the Assistant Collector for assessment of Central Excise Duty had been based on the price of the indigenous steel. During some time, indigenous steel was in short supply. The customer supplied imported steel to the appellants. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rule 173J, there was a time limit of one year for making demands for duties short-levied. Rule 10A applied "where these Rules do not make any specific provision for the collection of any duty, or of any deficiency in duty if the duty has for any reason been short-levied,..............". Rule 10A was thus a residuary provision. There was no time limit laid down in it. The department says that it was a case of suppression on the part of the appellants and hence Rule 10A applied. We do not agree. The appellants had filed price lists which had been duly approved and the appellants had removed the drums after payment of duty on the basis of the approved value. It was, therefore, not a case of non-declaration or suppression. But since the values ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
