9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (1) TMI 210X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d from April, 1981 to December, 1981 and the month of Feb., 1982. The Asstt. Collector based on the show cause notice confirmed the demand tor an amount of Rs. 3042.68 for the period from April to Dec., 1981 and Feb., 1982 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 150/-. The respondents took the matter before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) by the aforesaid order allowed the appeal of the respondents on the ground that the demand traverses beyond a period of six months and the show cause notice has been issued by the Supdt. especially the power of demand in such cases is vested with the Collector with effect from 25-12-85 in view of the amendment to Sec. 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act. He, therefore, set aside the order of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the time limit is applicable only in the case of demand raised under Sec. 11A. The show cause notice issued is for the purpose of penalty under Sec. 173Q and where there is a violation of the rule with an intention to evade duty, penalty could be imposed and the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty cannot be said to be hit by time bar. 6. After hearing both sides and perusing the available records, we firstly observe that the show cause notice dated 13-1-87 issued by the Supdt. though referring to short payment of duty during the period from April to Dec., 1981 and Feb., 1982 did not propose to either demand or confirm the demand in respect of the short levies. The show cause notice only directs the respondents as to why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h intent to evade payment of duty. 8. We are unable to agree with Shri Mondal that there was any contravention of provisions of rule with an intention to evade the payment of duty. The assessing officer has pointed out certain short levy, which was not accepted by the respondents land as is evident from the reply to the show cause notice, they have pointed out this position contesting the short endorsement on the RT-12 returns. The proper course for the department was to issue a show cause notice well in time so as to confirm the demand. Only when such a demand has been confirmed and they had not paid duty, malafides can be attributed. In this case, admittedly, no such suppression or fraud committed by the respondents is alleged. If such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
