9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder applications dated 22-1-1979 and 9-10-1978 respectively. But they had received two demands both dated 2-2-1979 demanding payment of duty of ₹ 2373.93 and ₹ 39132.78 respectively from the concerned Inspector. They represented to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patna for withdrawal of these demands under application dated 10-5-1979 pointing out that they had already made applications for extension of warehousing period and the demands had been received even before the disposal of the said applications. They had further pointed out therein that as under the budget for 1979 the Central Excise duty on tobacco had been withdrawn no duty was also payable by them. But the Assistant Collector under his letter dated 31-3-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oused on 2-2-1976 for a period of three years and the said period therefore came to an end by 1-2-1979. It was on that basis that the demands had been issued for payment of duty as on 2-2-1979, on the expiry of the warehousing period. But there is no dispute that the appellants had made applications for extension of the warehousing period by one year, the applications for extension being dated 22-1-1979 and 9-10-1978 respectively. It does not also appear from the records that any specific orders had been passed on these applications for extension. It is not clear whether the demands dated 2-2-1979 had been issued after the Collector had rejected the applications for extension. But it appears to us that it is unnecessary to pursue this matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contends that the goods having been warehoused when the rule as unamended was in force it would be that rule that would govern the period of warehousing and not the amended rule. In this connection he wanted to make reference to a letter dated 16-5-1977 by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Patna to the Collector of Central Excise,-Patna and a reply thereto dated 30-5-1977, the purport of this correspondence being to confirm the presumption of the Asstt. Collector that in respect of tobacco which had been warehoused on or before 1-4-1977 the initial period as well as that of extension would be as under the original rule. It is not clear as to how the appellants have produced copies of these letters, the copies also not being attested c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by 1-2-79 the authorities were entitled to demand the duty on 2-2-1979 and, therefore, such a demand was not required to be preceded by a show cause notice. It may be noted that the quantum of the tobacco, or the duty payable thereon as on 2-2-79, was not at any time disputed by the appellants, their claim being that by virtue of subsequent events no duty became payable if duty was to be paid as on the date of the confirmation of the demand by the Assistant Collector. 8. Shri Mookherjee had also contended that principles of natural justice had been violated in the adjudication proceedings and for this reason also the orders of the lower authorities were to be set aside. The basis for this argument was the reasons earlier discussed, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
