9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (9) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile Textile Articles) Act, 1978 for the purpose of calculation of interest on yarn duty under Rule 49A. The original authority confirmed the duty and held that since there was a contravention of Rule 49A, demand of 5 years period under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was applicable. 1.2 On appeal, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, however, upheld the contention of the respondents herein that the demand was hit by normal time limit of six months under Section 11A since the R.T. 12 returns for the relevant period have been finally assessed without any objection/query and there was no allegation in the show cause notice regarding suppression/mis-statement of facts. He relied on Tribunal s d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er other Central Acts, if any, providing for levy of duty on such goods. On this analogy, the Collector has urged, that Rule 49-A should be deemed to include for the purpose of charging interest on yarn duty, all duties of excise and not only the duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act. 3.1 In rebuttal of this, the respondents have stated in their cross-objections, mentioned supra, that the explanation to Section 4 would be applicable only if the duty is leviable on ad valorem basis. In the case of yarn, it has been stated that duty is leviable only on the basis of weight. 3.2 We are inclined to agree with the contention of the respondents so far as this ground of appeal is concerned. Explanation to Section 4 referred to by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 49A is somewhat loose expression but is made explicit by the subsequent clause (b) in those conditions where it has been referred to merely as interest. The limitation provided under Section 11A would not apply to recovery of short-payment of interest under Rule 49A. 4.2 We have considered the pleas advanced on both sides. Although the application of general law of limitation of three years was never urged by the department at any earlier stage, since this being purely a legal submission we allowed the learned DR to urge that ground. In view of the direct authority of the Tribunal s decision, mentioned supra, relied upon by the learned DR we uphold his plea. Since the show cause notice dated 17-2-1981 is within the general limitation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
