9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (3) TMI 414X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in, S.D.R., for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal that arose from the order-in-appeal No. CE/DLH/83, dated 28-3-1983 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi. That order of the Appellate Collector arose in turn from the order-in-original No. V(15A)30/2/72/Val./Pt. 2946, dated 27-3-1922 of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Div. III, Faridabad. 2. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5/80, dated 27-2-1980, and why the differential duty involved, if any, due to availing concessional rate of duty at 29% ad valorem by them should not be recovered from them under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 . Now one can see that when the Superintendent issued this notice, he did not even know if there was any differential duty. Important matters or this kind cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow the manner, the time as well as the reasons why the notice issuer says that the money was recoverable as duty. While it may not always, perhaps, be possible to calculate the exact money proposed to be recovered as duty, the notice giver should notify the notice receiver how and by what method he arrived at and deduced the short recovery which he proposes to revover under the notice. The utmost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 79, dated 4-6-1979, and as such, the concessional rate of duty up to 29% ad valorem on synthetic polyester resin under Notification No. 7/80-C.E., dated 27-2-1980 was not applicable to them. But Notification No. 7/80 does not say that if they obtained proforma credit under Notification No. 201/79, it would not be applicable to the manufacturer. Here is where the notice issuer should have explained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
