9911796707
TMI Blog1970 (11) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Moosapet near Sanatnagar, Hyderabad. On 16-6-1964, the 5th respondent (Surana Trade and Finance Corporation, Secunderabad) entered into a written agreement with the petitioner and during the period from 29-4-1964 to 23-2-1966 entrusted about 3,000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails having purchased the same from Hindustan Steel Limited, Bhillai Division for the purpose of re-rolling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise issued to the petitioner demand notices dated 17-10-1966 for Rs. 98,191.95 and Rs. 37,707.90 respectively demanding payment as excise duty on the rounds re-rolled by the petitioner under Tariff Item No. 26AA in Schedule I of the Act. The demand notices were purported to have been issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Thereupon the petitioner made a written rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods and the petitioners do not fall within this category. The demand made more than three months after the removal of excisable articles would be clearly without jurisdiction and barred by Rule 10. The provisions of Tariff Item 26AA are not attracted and the various notifications, to which we shall shortly advert, grant relief to the petitioner and as such the demand notices issued by the Insp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... definition of manufacturer was wide enough to cover the petitioner's case as well. In regard to the question of limitation it was stated that as Rule 10A applied, the objection was untenable. ***** 10. The last contention on behalf of the petitioner is that he does not come within the definition of manufacturer and as such cannot be held liable for the excise duty. The definition of `manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
