9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (11) TMI 283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2; (2) dated 9-9-1981; (3) dated 20-12-1982. 2. At the appeal stage the learned Collector (Appeals) had set aside the order in so far as it related to the last show cause notice dated 31-12-1982 as time-barred. 3. We are, therefore, concerned at this stage with the remaining two show cause notices in respect of which the order-in-original has been confirmed. 4. It is Shri Gupta s submission that the Assistant Collector has passed a common order with reference to these show cause notices. However, it will be seen from the documents filed by them in the paper book that the show cause notice dated 9-9-1981 (Annexure-A(1) was amended by a corrigendum dated 31-12-1982 (Annexure-C). But the Assistant Collector has in his order proceeded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1981 to August, 1981. 7. Since this notice has been issued on 31-12-1982 in respect of the above period, it was time-barred. It has obviously been issued much after the normal time limit of six months. 8. In any eventuality the Assistant Collector has not passed any order with reference to this notice dated 31-12-1982. Therefore, they were not liable to pay the amount demanded therein. However, as they have already paid the amount demanded, the same was required to be refunded. It was, therefore, his request that this notice may be quashed and the department may be directed to give them consequential relief. 9. As regards the second show cause notice dated 20-12-1982 it was his submission that in this notice the duty has been demande ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be set aside. Shri Thakur submits that he agrees that it appears from the Assistant Collector s order that the learned Asstt. Collector has only taken into account the original show cause notice issued on 9-9-1981 and has not taken into account the corrigendum dated 31-12-1982. Since this amendment had not been taken into consideration the case is required to be remanded back to the Asstt. Collector for de novo consideration. 14. In so far as the second show cause notice dated 20-12-1982 is concerned no order has been passed by the Asstt. Collector with reference to the bags on which cess was demanded in the show cause notice. Since it appears that he has not taken these facts of the case into account, the matter in respect of this show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h) regarding which there is no demand. 19. The learned Asstt. Collector had obviously erred in this respect also. However, I consider that in this respect the mistake is still rectifiable. I, therefore, accept the request of the learned S.D.R. and remand the case in so far as it relates to this notice. 20. The learned counsel is also correct in pointing out that not only the Assistant Collector, but the Collector (Appeals) has also travelled beyond the scope of the show cause notices. As a matter of fact, in his order-in-appeal the Collector (Appeals) has merely cited the legal provision with reference to which the cess is leviable and held that the cess on the jute yarn utilised in the factory of production for jute manufactures is cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
