9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot and under which the Collector had directed the present appellants to pay duty of ₹ 1,27,811.64 under Rule 56A(5)(i) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as the Collector held that the appellants wrongly utilised credit of this amount in paying duty of Central Excise on plastic laminated sheets manufactured by the appellants and classifiable under Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff. Advocate Shri Satodia has contended that the appellants had the permission to have the benefit of Rule 56A from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot and earlier from the previous jurisdictional officer viz. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Jamnagar. As per the permission granted by the Asstt. Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Collector. The Advocate stated that the Collector s decision for denying the credit was very harsh as the appellant was not at all at fault when the Asstt. Collector granted the permission even though he was not authorised to do so. In any case, the appellants request in their letter dated 4-12-1980 was still pending with the Collector and the Collector could have exercised discretion and granted the request. Besides, the Collector in his order dated 31-7-1982 did not revoke or modify the order dated 5-1-1982 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rajkot and that the Collector only directed payment of duty amounting to Rs. ??7,811.64 in terms of Rule 56A(5)(i). The Collector s order dated 31-7-1982 further presumes that the demand f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edure annexed to Notification No. 209/79, dated 4-6-1979 empowers the Collector only to grant the permission. Hence, the Assistant Collector s permission has got no effect. In answer to the query from the Bench, the departmental representative confirmed that the records of the case with him did not indicate that any show cause notice had been issued by the Supdt, Central Excise, Wakaner, demanding duty from the appellants or their predecessor for repayment of duty where credit had been wrongly utilised by them. 3. We have examined the submissions in the appeal and of the respondent. We find that the Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in his Order dated 31-7-1982 does not say that there was any lapse on the part of the appellant. He h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
