9911796707
TMI Blog1979 (9) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed of by a common order. 2. In so far as the revision application against order-in-appeal No. 2118/75, dated 9-12-1975 is concerned, it is disposed of on a preliminary point. In this case, the demand relates to the period from 1-8-64 to 31-12-1971. It was confirmed and the matter was finally decided by the Government in revision vice order No. 1901/72. Government set aside the order-in-appeal on the ground that it was passed in vacuum without an order in original. After this order of the Government, the Assistant Collector vide his order dated 15-9-1973 withdrew all the 31 demands covering this period. After the demands had been withdrawn by the Assistant Collector by a proper order if the Department felt that the Assistant Collector' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h can be done in exercise of powers of review vested in the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 35A of the Act. The order of the Assistant Collector which was based on the cancellation of this order was in the circumstances a nullity. That being so, the proceedings subsequent to the Assistant Collector's orders also become a nullity. The result is that it is only the Assistant Collector's order dated 15-9-1973 which still subsists. The revision application is accordingly allowed. 4. In so far as the order two revision applications are concerned, two questions arise for Government's consideration, namely :- (i) Whether the demands are maintainable under Rule 10 or under Rule 10A and if Rule 10 is held applicable how much of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h is against order in appeal dated 27-9-1976, the short levy relates to the period 1-8-1974 to 30-6-1975 and notice of demand was issued for this period on 29-12-1975. In this case also, this notice could not cover the short levy prior to 23-12-1974 and this part of the demand would be hit by the mischief of time bar. In the circumstances a substantial portions of both the demands would attract the mischief of time bar as Rule 10 applies and it is only a small period for which the demand notices could be held to have been issued within time. 7. Now coming to the second question whether there had in fact been short levy which could be made good though to a limited extent by these two above mentioned notices, Government observe that the tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
