9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Revenue authorities started raising demand for differential duty on RT 12 returns filed by respondents. Since on the RT-12 for the month of February 86 the Supdt. C. Excise did not raise the demand, the Collector in terms of Section 35E(2) took the matter in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) who in this regard has held as under : I have carefully considered the submissions of the respondents and the facts as stated in the application. I find that when on the specific issue, there is an order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras as stated in the statement of facts of the application, merely because the Department has filed an appeal to the CEGAT which is to be decided, does not authorise the demanding of duty, at the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urns were raised except in the case of one month. He pointed out that the Tribunal has already decided the matter in appeal No. E/103/84-B1, Order No. 653/87-B1, dated 14-10-87 in the case of the respondents (Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. M/s. Doorvani Cables Pvt. Ltd.). He pleaded that pending decision by the Tribunal there was no bar to raising the demand on the RT 12 and the Collector (Appeals) should have allowed the Department s appeal. 4. Shri Nityanand, Financial Officer appeared on behalf of the Respondent. In the written submission made by the respondents they have pointed out that the issue stands concluded with the decision of the Tribunal referred to by the learned S.D.R. Therefore, the Department s appeal is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. As mentioned above, RT 12 returns are intended to see whether the duty has been paid in terms of the approved classification and price list in law. In the present case, the benefit of the Notification was given in terms of an appellate order of the Collector (Appeals) and it can be seen that the lower rate of 10% stood approved for the purpose and the assessee did make payment in terms of the approval granted in respect of the classification and price list. Therefore, the action of the Superintendent in not raising the demand on RT 12 is correct in law and the Collector (Appeals) decision not to interfere as pleaded by the Revenue is maintainable. As held by the Collector (Appeals), the authorities could have raised the demand under Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
