9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents in the present proceedings before us. By his impugned order the Collector (Appeals) held that, though the appellants did not have a case on merits, they had a case on the aspect of time bar. It is against this order touching the aspect of time bar that the present appeal has been filed. 2. Sri M.N. Biswas, learned SDR, arguing for the appellant Collector, showed the receipt obtained by the departmental authorities from the respondents evidencing the date of serving of the notice for the short levied amount. The Collector (Appeals) had observed in his order that notice dated 6-10-1986 relating to recovery of duty cleared during 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986 was time barred. . There is no specific observation in this order regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On this point, Shri Mukhopadhyay referred to the department s clarification reproduced on page T. 31 to T. 35 of Excise Law Times -1987 (32) E.L.T.. This is a list of notifications to which the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986 are prima facie applicable. The said list has been issued under the authority of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue letter No. 4/5/87-Cex I dated 11-11-1987. In this list. Notification No. 213/86 dated 25-3-1986 does not figure, and it was submitted by the learned counsel that the effect of this would be that the notification would have effect only from the date of its publication and cannot have retrospective application from 1-3-86. 5. Sri M.N. Biswas, SDR, gave a rejoinder to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of law". In the circumstances, we feel that the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) has got to be set aside for failure to meet the principles of natural justice. 6. In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection are allowed. The effect of this will be that the order in appeal holding that the demand is hit by limitation is set aside. The allowing of cross objection is to the extent of setting aside the order in appeal holding that the appellants [before the Collector (Appeals)] do not have a case on merit. The matter is now remanded to that authority for de novo decision on merits meeting the requirements of natural justice taking into account the submissions made by the appellants (before him) regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
