9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (3) TMI 267X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i]. - This is an appeal transferred to the Tribunal under Section 35-P(2) of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. The appellants have taken two main contentions in the appeal against the levy of differential duty demanded in the order of the Assistant Collector dated 16-11-1978. The first contention is that the demand is time-barred under Rule 10 and the Asstt. Collector s reliance on Rule 160 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and no objection was raised at the relevant time. The departmental representative has opposed the submissions of the appellant on the ground that the Appellants Collector s order and the Asstt. Collector s order are correct. The quantity subjected to levy of duty has to be treated as a loss in terms of Rule 160 and duty has been correctly demanded by the Assistant Collector. 2. We have examin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
