9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (4) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondents. [Order]. - This is Revenues' appeal. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :- 1.1 The respondents herein took money credit of Rs. 7,78,895 on Minor Oils during the period 1st March, 1987 to 8th March, 1987. They however, did not file any declaration before taking this money credit in their RG 23B Part I and Part II account. They filed a declaration in terms of Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onths period stipulated under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 1.3 Against the aforesaid order, Revenue has come in appeal. 2.1 Learned SDR Shri T. Premkumar for the Revenue urges that the lower appellate authority's order relying on Collector of Central Excise v. TELCO reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 132 (Tribunal) is incorrect inasmuch as the said judgment relies on Mod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law that where no time limit is prescribed in any provision, a reasonable, time-limit has to be read thereunder. In this connection, he relies upon decision in the case of Government of India v. Citadel Fine Pharmaceutical [1989 (42) E.L.T. 515]. He further submits that based on this judgment of the Apex Court a reasonable time limit was read in the Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules (of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority is correct. He also submits that this Court has also been taking similar view, for example, in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Indian Paper Machinery and Engineering Works [Order No. A-986/CAL/1995, dated 14-8-1995]. 4. I have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. I am inclined to agree with the submission of the learned Advocate of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
