9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (12) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prepare the appeal and file the same in time as he fell ill and prepared the appeal and filed the same immediately after recovery. 2. Notice dated 16-6-1982 was issued to the appellants M/s Dhampur Sugar Mills, that while they paid duty at 15% ad valorem on the removals during April and May 1980, in terms of Notification No. 70/76-C.E., dated 16-8-1976, they had charged from the buyers duty at 30% ad valorem and hence the assessable value has to be reworked and, on such enhanced assessable value, demand was being raised for the differential amount. The notice called upon them to show cause why the demand should not be confirmed. On adjudication the demand was confirmed by the Assistant Collector under his order dated 16/18-9-1982. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e customers had not been disclosed. Shri Gopal Prasad in this connection submitted that the sales had been in accordance with the approved price list and, therefore, there had been no collection from the customers of duty at 30%. As earlier noted Shri Gopal Prasad at the commencement submitted that he would advance arguments on the question of limitation only. He had, therefore, at that stage not chosen to dispute the factual basis on which the demand for differential duty was raised. In addition, we may note that the factual assertion in the show cause notice that duty had been collected from the customers at 30%, though duty was paid at 15% only, was not disputed in the reply thereto. Though no copy of the reply to the show cause notice h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , follow that when with reference to those months, the department chose to raise a demand, the said demand should have been issued within the normal period of limitation. Though under the Finance Act of 1982 the amendment to Section 4(4)(d)(ii) had been made retrospective, it would not mean that all demands for such differentials could be raised irrespective of the limitations prescribed under Section 11-A. Since, for the reasons already stated, we hold that demand in respect of the differential duty for the months April-May 1980 should have been issued within the normal period of limitation, we hold that the show cause notice dated 16-6-1982 was barred by time. 6. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the orders of the lower authoritie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
