9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand and collection of any deficiency in duty or of any other sum of any kind payable to the Central Government under the Act or the Rules without any limit of time. Hence the High Court was clearly right in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the demand notices issued to it under rule 10-A were illegal and unsustainable. - Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1972, W.P. No. 3354 of 1968 - - - Dated:- 5-5-1986 - BALAKRISHNA ERADI V. AND KHALID V. JJ. Anil B. Divan, Senior Advocate (D.N. Misra, Ashok Sagar and P.K. Rama Narain, Advocates, with him), for the appellant. Gobind Das and P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate (Miss Halida Khatun, R.N. Poddar and A.K. Ganguli, Advocates, with them), for the respondents. ------------------ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad, contending that the demand for payment of excise duty on the M.S. rounds was illegal since they had been re-rolled from rails which were exempt from levy of excise duty. The Assistant Collector by his order dated January 17, 1967, rejected the said contention. However, while doing so, he gave a direction to the Inspector of Central Excise to revise the demands in accordance with the rates of duty which were current during the different periods. Pursuant thereto, three revised demand notices dated March 18, 1967, were issued to the appellant. The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad. But that appeal was rejected by the Collector and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounted to manufacture. Since item No. 26-AA(i) expressly takes within its scope "all other rolled, forged or extruded shapes and sections, not otherwise specified", the M.S. rounds manufactured by the appellant by the process of re-rolling were clearly liable to excise duty under the said item. We find no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the M.S. rounds manufactured by it were covered by the exemption granted by the Notification No. 89/62, dated May 10, 1962. The relevant portion of that notification was in the following terms: "The Central Government hereby exempts with effect from 24th April, 1962, iron and steel products falling under item No. 26-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he demand for duty was bad since it was made beyond the period of three months which is the time- limit specified in rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The High Court has categorically found that in the present case no assessment or levy of duty had been made at the time when the goods were removed from the factory of the appellant. As pointed out by this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Company of India Ltd. [1973] 1 SCR 822, rule 10 presupposes an assessment which could be reopened on specific grounds within the period specified therein. The relative scope and applicability of rules 10 and 10-A were considered in detail by this Court in the said decision and it was explained "th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
