Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1985 (7) TMI 352

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duty at ₹ 4/50 per gross. On 2-4-1980 a show cause notice was issued to them why they should not be called upon to pay differential duty for the clearances from 1-4-1979 to 30-11-1979. They sent a reply denying liability. After granting a personal bearing in which a defense of time bar was also raised the Assistant Collector under his order dated 17-9-1982 confirmed the demand. An appeal against the same was dismissed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) under his order dated 24-9-1984. This appeal is against the said order. 2. We have heard Shri H.P. Arora, Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Dolly Saxena, Senior Departmental Representative and Shri K.C. Sachar, Junior Departmental Representative for the respondent Colle .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uction in a calender month from such factory does not exceed 10 million matches ; and (c) where the clearance of matches from such factory in the financial year exceeds 75 million matches, but does not exceed 100 million matches, the duty on such excess clearance shall be required to be paid at the rate of ₹ 4.50 per gross of 50 matches each and if the clearance, by or on behalf of such manufacturer exceeds 100 million matches during the financial year, the duty shall be required-to be paid at the rate of ₹ 4.50 per gross of 50 matches each on the entire quantity cleared during the financial year. The contention of Shri Arora is that not merely should the appellant have exceeded clearance of 10 million matches in a partic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he benefit under the notification could itself be claimed only when the 10 million mark is not crossed during any month during the year. Once that condition [under sylxlause (b)] is contravened, duty will become payable at the full rate, irrespective of the quantum of total clearances during the year. We therefore hold against the appellants with reference to this contention. 5. The second contention of Shri Arora is that in any event the demand for differential duty is barred by time so far as the period which exceeds six months prior to the date of the show cause notice which is 2-4-1980. His contention is that under rule 10, as it then stood, the period of limitation was six months and that therefore the demand for the period prior to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... govern the rights of the parties and the said period being six months the demand could be enforced only with reference to the period of six months preceding 2-4-1980 and not any antecedent period. 7. The contention of Shri Arora appears to us to be incorrect. Any period of limitation is prescribed under a particular rule to ensure that stale claims are avoided. Any claim made after the expiry of period of limitation is to be refused not because the claim was not well founded but because the period of limitation for enforcing the claim had expired. Therefore, in construing any rule of limitation and the applicability thereof to particular circumstances the three aspects to be looked into are (1) the validity of the claim; (2) the date fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the year. Therefore, it is only after the Department could have become aware of the crossing of the 10 million mark in October, 1979 that the Department would have become entitled to demand differential duty for all clearances commencing from 1-4-1979. 9. This fact of clearance of 10 million matches during October would have come to light on the submission of the necessary return at the end of the month. Therefore, the right to enforce recovery of differential duty would have arisen on and after 1-11-1979 depending upon the date when the return was filed. From the Asstt. Collector s order it is seen that the return was filed on 3-11-1979. The right to enforce recovery, of the differential duty thus having arisen on 3-11-1979 the action f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates