9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent followed the approved classification list and the price list, the assessee, in terms of Rule 173-I is bound to pay the amount short levied from them by suitable entry in the PLA and that the need for any direction from this would arise only if the RT-12 assessment had followed a basis different from what has been done while approving the classification list or price list. He, therefore, held that raising of the demand in the RT-12 return without show cause notice could not be called into question. He, accordingly upheld the Assistant Collector s order confirming the demand. 2. In their present appeal, the appellants have contended that Rule 1731 authorises the Central Excise officers to assess the monthly return and the power to issue directions on the monthly return for the duty short paid or excess paid is primarily meant to rectify the accounting errors or similar mistakes not needing any application of judicious mind. The assessing officer is not required to follow the principles of natural justice, if he merely rectifies an accounting mistake. Otherwise, it is obligatory on the part of the assessing authority to issue a show cause notice. Reliance has been placed by them ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al be allowed. 4. Shri M.N. Biswas, learned Senior Departmental Representative replied to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel. He pointed out that after the issue of Notification No. 99/84 dated 30-4-1984, rebate could be taken only on the quantity of Rice Bran Oil used whereas they took the same on the whole quantity of vegetable product cleared by them. There was thus short payment of duty. There is no doubt about the legality of the assessment. The question then is whether the endorsement in the RT-12 would constitute the notice. The short payment in question had occurred in May, 1984. The Superintendent had assessed the RT-12 return on 1-9-1984 and made the endorsement regarding demand of duty which was within six months from the relevant date. His action was in terms of Rule 173-I which is meant for such situations. Shri Biswas relied upon the decision of this Bench in Balaji Fasteners v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 543 and the judgment of the Honourable Allahabad High Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1991 (52) E.L.T. 359. The High Court had held that the endorsement in the RT-12 to debit from RG-23 or f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Officer has circled the amounts shown as Rebate availed, totalling Rs. 5,08,489.05/- as stated above and added an endorsement as followed : RBO Rebate admissible Rs. 1,05,778.56 in place of Rs. 5,08,489.05 already availed in terms of Notification No. 99/84-C.E., dated 30-4-1984. Resulting short payment of Central Excise duty of Rs. 4,02,710.49 demanded. In the Assessment Memorandum in the same RT-12 return which has been completed by the Superintendent on 1-9-1984, the following endorsement appears : The assessee has paid the duty on the above goods correctly except to the extent indicated below: (a) Duty of Rs. 4,02,710.49 short paid towards irregular availment of RB Oil Rebate. Detail furnished in Annexure A enclosed. (b) Duty of Rs. 8,647.39 /- short paid towards C.E. duty payable on RB Oil Rebate availed in the month. (c) A separate show cause-cum-Demand Notice issued for duty payable @ 10% adv. on V.P. cleared from 11-5-1984 to 31-5-1984 vide Notification No. 121 /84 C.E., dated 11-5-1984. (d) A separate show cause-cam-Demand Notice issued for amount realised in the Bills as other charges amounting to Rs. 3 per 15 Kg. tins but excluded from the assessab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) The duty determined and paid by assessee under Rule 173F shall be adjusted against the duty assessed by the proper Officer under sub-rule (1) and where the duty so assessed is more than the duty determined and paid by the assessee, the assessee shall pay the deficiency by making a debit in the account-current within ten days of receipt of copy of the return from the proper officer and where such duty is less, the assessee shall take credit in the account-current for the excess on receipt of the assessment order in the copy of the return duly counter-signed by a Superintendent of Central Excise." 9. When sub-rule (2) thus provides for the procedure to be followed by the Superintendent for completing the Assessment Memorandum in the RT-12 return and as such completion was by applying the rate of rebate per quintal of Rice Bran Oil used in the manufacture of Vegetable Products in terms of Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (Dept. of Revenue) Notification No. 99/84-C.E., dated 30-4-1984 as per their declaration in the classification list filed by them they were required to pay the deficiency pointed out by making a debit in their account current within ten days of receipt of the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m. Similarly, in Vipul Dyes Chemicals and K.R. Metal Industries cases, duty was demanded revising the earlier stand of the Department to the disadvantage of the assessee. In the present case, however, as pointed out earlier, the duty sought to be demanded is in accordance with the rate declared by the appellants themselves in the RT-12 return. It is not that the authorities approved a lower rate of duty or a higher level of rebate and later on wanted to apply a higher rate of duty or lower level of rebate revising their earlier decision. Further, the demand was also in line with the provisions of Rule 173-I (2). Where such assessment by the Superintendent of the RT-12 return is in accordance with the classification list submitted by the assessees themselves and approved by the Department, the adjustment of differential duty involved is governed by Rule 173-I and a notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is not necessary. All the decisions against the RT-12 endorsements are in cases where there was an element of reassessment on the part of the Department, contrary to the earlier assessment or classification decision and contrary to the assessee s declaration. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y (2) the demand was in pursuance of Rule 173-I while assessing the RT-12 return in accordance with the rate of duty including the rate of rebate viz. Rs. 30/- per quintal of RBO used in the manufacture of Vegetable Products in terms of Notification No. 99/84-C.E., dated 30-4-1984 which was declared by them in the classification list. The contention has been raised in the present appeal that the power to issue directions in terms of Rule 173-I on the monthly RT-12 return for the duty short paid is primarily meant to rectify accounting errors or similar mistakes and as rectification of such errors does not need any application of judicious mind the assessing officer is not required to follow the principles of natural justice. Otherwise, it is obligatory on the part of the assessing authority to issue a show cause notice before any directions are issued by him to the assessee on RT-12. A case KTM Nair v. State of Kerala, 1978 (2) E.L.T. J 210 has been cited. We do not find any decision on the said lines under the above reference. However, we do not agree with the appellants contention regarding the scope of the corrective action under Rule 173-I. The said Rule which has been extract ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
