9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nasmuch as the demand is not valid in terms of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 2. Sh. Venkatan, the learned DR has pleaded that the demand had been raised based on the approved classification list dated 30-3-1990 for payment of duty at the rate of 15% while the respondents had paid duty only at the rate of 10%. He pleaded no doubt the respondents had filed another classification list on 2-4-1990 inasmuch as the same was not approved Superintendent was duty bound to assess the RT 12s based on the approved classification list. He pleaded that respondents had also filed a letter that they will be paying the differential duty under protest which is 15%. For the month of April 1990 a show cause notice was issued demanding differential d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly at the instance of the Department filed a classification list on 30-3-1990 classifying their goods for payment of duty at 15% and they also simultaneously informed that they will be paying the duty under protest. They, however, did not follow the procedure prescribed for payment of duty under protest under Rule 233B and in the alternative as provided for under Rule 173B filed another classification list on 2-4-1990 classifying the goods under Tariff Heading 20.01 which carries a rate of 10%. Thereafter, the respondents proceeded to clear the goods based on the classification list filed by them on 2-4-1990. This classification list was finalised only on 2-12-1990. He pleaded at best the clearance during April and May could be considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r has been passed without compliance with the principles of natural justice. 4. I have given a careful thought to the pleas made by both the sides. I observe that the Superintendent is required to assess the RT 12s based on the approved classification list and the price list. In the present case, the approved classification list was dated 30-3-1990 under which the rate of duty approved was 15%. No fault can be found so far as raising of the demand for the differential duty by the Superintendent is concerned. Further, the Superintendent did not follow the desired procedure in the matter of proceedings for recovery under Rule 173-I and he should have issued a show cause notice and given an opportunity of hearing to the respondents. Show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
