9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on 20th September, 1989. As sufficient time had been allowed to the respondents informing them about the hearing of the appeal today and as no request had also been received from them for an adjournment, we proceed to dispose of these appeals. As a common issue is involved in both these appeals and the difference is only that these two cases relate to assessment of two months viz. May, 1984 and June, 1984, we pass a common order relating to both these appeals. 2. These two appeals are filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna against the orders passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). By his impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had allowed the appeals filed by the present respondents and set aside the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ilkington Glass Works Ltd. v. Supdt. of Central Excise [1978 (2) E.L.T. J229]. 3. In the present appeals before us the appellant Collector has contended that the action taken by the Superintendent was in pursuance of Rule 173-I of the Central Excise Rules. The said Rule is as under : (1) The proper officer shall on the basis of the information contained in the return filed by the assessee under sub-rule (3) of the Rule 173G and after such further inquiry as he may consider necessary, assess the duty due on the goods removed and complete the assessment memorandum on the return. A copy of the return so completed shall be sent to the assessee. (2) The duty determined and paid by the assessee under Rule 173F shall be adjusted against the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to issue a notice to the appellant. The action proposed was for imposition of penalty and confiscation of goods. In such case a notice was a must as well as the opportunity to be heard. In the present case of demand for duty short assessed by the assessee himself there was no proposal to penalise him. 5. In the course of his arguments, Shri M.N. Biswas, learned SDR stressed the points in the appeal regarding the self-contained nature of Rule 173-I and its authority, which is independent of other provisions like 11A for short levy and 11B for refund. He stated that in a recent case this Bench had dealt with a refund matter where refund of duty excess paid by mistake in the relevant RT-12 was regulated in terms of Rule 173-I without applyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n indicated by the assessee in the RT-12. It is seen that while calculating the amount of duty by applying the rate of duty to the quantity cleared the present respondents have committed an error and paid a lower amount of duty than what was liable to be paid. There have been no assessment of officers at this stage and the revised amount of duty calculated by the Superintendent and communicated to the assessees for making payment is not the result of any adjudication action disputing a claim either on classification or on valuation by the assessee. It was to take care of such situation arising for example from errors in calculation that Rule 173-I has been introduced in the Central Excise Rules. This is a self-contained provision and is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
