9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt under Rule 173Q(1) of the rules read with Section 11 AC of the Act. He also directed the assessee to pay the interest as provided by law in the event of delay in making the payment so ordered. Against this order the assessee has filed an appeal and the present application seeking waiver of deposit of the sums as also stay of recovery thereof. 2. We have heard Shri B.N. Rangwani, Consultant for the applicants and Shri G.B. Yadav, for the Revenue. 3. The assessee had cleared certain quantity of levy sugar on payment of duty during the period 1974-75 to 1979-80. The ex-factory price of such levy sugar was fixed by the Union Government. The fixation of prices of levy sugar in terms of Section 3(3)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... removed on payment of appropriate duty leviable at the material time and with the knowledge of the department. He also relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MRF Limited v. CCE, Madras - 1997 (92) E.L.T. 209 (S.C.). In the judgment the Court have held that where prices fixed by the Government were the basis for levy of duty, any variation therein subsequent to the clearance of the goods, does not effect liability of the goods to Central Excise duty. He further stated that on the same ground similar show-cause notices were issued to a number of sugar manufacturers. He stated that in several cases the jurisdictional Commissioners had dropped the demands on the observation that the demands were barred by limitation. He ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with that situation the observation was made by the Court that the subsequent reduction in the prices would not adversely affect the interest of the parties for payment of excise duty. 8. We have considered the Commissioner s finding as also the submissions of Shri Yadav about the applicability of the provisions of Section 11A. We do not find any merit in his submissions especially when we find that the demand was made under Rule 9(2). Rule 9(2) is coupled with the said Section only for calculating the time frame. But the basic requirement is for the department to show surreptitious removal of the goods. In this case the goods were cleared with full knowledge of the department. Nor are we impressed with the invocation of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
