9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, made 18 demands on the Returns from the month of March, 1976 to August, 1977. The Superintendent did so without issuing any show cause notice to the appellants, and without hearing them. The demands, in all, totalled Rs. 4,93,480.68 and were communicated to the appellants during the period from 23-2-1977 to 12-9-1977. On 13-1-1978, the Superintendent sent them a reminder to pay the demands which were still outstanding. It was then that the appellants appealed to .the Appellate Collector. 'The Appeal Collector, without granting a personal hearing (even though asked for by the appellants) dismissed the appeal as a nullity since it had been filed against the Superintendent's reminder and not against the origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers and asked the appellants to comply with them. The reminder did not confer a fresh right of appeal to the appellants. The Appellate Collector was, therefore, not wrong in substance when he dismissed their appeal against the reminder as a nullity. The Appellate Collector, no doubt, did not observe the principles of natural justice when he dismissed the appeal without hearing the appellants. But we see no point in remanding the matter to the Collector (Appeals) now because, under the law as it stood at the material time, the out-come of the appeal cannot be any different. The fact is that the appellants were not vigilant and they did not exercise their right of appeal against the demands in time. When belatedly they did file an appeal in 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lass Works Ltd. v. Supdt. Central Excise, Asansole & Others), it has been held as in para 20 as follows :- "20. The Superintendent, Central Excise in determining the assessable values of the goods, for the purpose of determining the excise duty under Section 4 of the Act is performing quasi judicial functions. Such order affects the rights of the petitioner. Although in the Act there is no provision for giving a personal hearing to the petitioner before making such order of assessment, but in the instant case certain deductions claimed by the petitioner for the purpose of determining the assessable value of the products have been disallowed by the Superintendent of Central Excise without assigning any reason. The petitioner wanted to make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, of the view that the impugned order needs to be set aside and the matter be remanded to the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise for deciding the case de novo in accordance with the principles of natural justice. This view is further fortified by Tribunal's order No. 709 and 710/87-B1 dated 21st October, 1987 in the case of M/s. Metal Box India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. Relevant extracts from which are reproduced below :- "It is wrong on all grounds. It declares the assessee's appeal time barred when there was not even an order from which to appeal the order required by Section 11A to be issued by the Assistant Collector to determine the dues. The endorsements on the R.T. 12's are not orders; at best they ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
