9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation No. 108/78. Subsequently, it was noticed that the actual amount of duty paid by the appellants on the clearances of free sale sugar was less than the amount of credit allowed to them. Accordingly, they were asked to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 1,13,602.62 credited in excess erroneously should not be demanded from them. After considering the appellants reply and oral arguments, the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand. The appellants then appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, who rejected their appeal and against the impugned order, the present appeal has been filed. 3. The appellants had taken several grounds in this appeal but the one on which similar appeals have been allowed and later co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the issue in this appeal has been answered in several rulings and relied upon the following rulings :- 1. Order No. 52/85-D, dated 30-2-1985 in Appeal No. 233/84-D Z 2. Collector of Central Excise v. Chengalrayan Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. [1989 (39) E.L.T. 551 (Tribunal)] 3. Triveni Engg- Works Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi [1986 (26) E.L.T. 583] 4. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills [1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 (S.C.)l 5. M/s. Pravara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Union of India Others [1984 E.C.R. 59 (Bombay High Court)] 6. Indian Aluminum Cables Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise [1989 (41) E.L.T. 688] 5. Shri L.C. Chakraborthy, the learned JDR appearing for the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion as reported in 1984 E.C.R. 59 wherein it had been held that Trade Notice are not to be relied upon as they were not pieces of legislation. He further relied upon 1989 (41) E.L.T. 77 Tribunal wherein it had been held-that provisional assessment cannot be done for past clearances but only for current or future assessments. He further contended that the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 478 was squarely applicable to the facts of this case and that this Tribunal cannot make any departure from it. 6. We have heard both sides, perused the records and carefully considered the submissions of both sides. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether to follow the previous rulings in similar cases as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of this case. Shri L.C. Chakraborthy wants us to read from the Bombay High Court judgment (supra) as in para 8 of that judgment to apply to this case. After careful reading of the judgment and para 8, it is clear that the Bombay High Court had upheld the application of Trade Notice, under which the party had given an undertaking and had taken advantage under the Trade Notice, which had acted as an estoppel and hence the Bombay High Court had held that Rule 10 had not applicability. In this case, there had been no Trade Notice as on the date of crediting the sums in PLA Account nor the appellant had given any undertaking nor the Revenue had sought for enforcing such an undertaking. Hence we have to reject the contention of Shri L.C. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
