9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (5) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny of the reasons specified in the said Rule. The case is, therefore, covered by the provisions of Rule 10A, which is a residuary provision authorising the demand and collection of any deficiency in duty or of any other sum of any kind payable to Central Government under the Act or the Rules without any limit of time. Hence the High Court was clearly right in rejecting the contention of the appellant that the demand notices issued to it under Rule 10A were illegal and unsustainable. Appeal dismissed. - 56 of 1972 - - - Dated:- 5-5-1986 - V. Balakrishna Eradi and V. Khalid, JJ. [Judgment per : Balakrishna Erade, J.]. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 5, 1970 on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector by his order dated January 17, 1967 rejected the said contention. However, while doing so, he gave a direction to the Inspector of Central Excise to revise the demands in accordance with the rates of duty which were current during the different periods. Pursuant thereto, three revised demand notices dated March 18, 1967 were issued to the appellant. The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad. But that appeal was rejected by the Collector and the demands were confirmed. A Revision Petition filed by the appellant to the Central Government also met with the same fate. Thereafter the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking an appropriate writ quashing the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly liable to excise duty under the said item. 6. We find no substance in the contention urged on behalf of the appellant that the M.S. Rounds manufactured by it were covered by the exemption granted by the Notification No. 89/62, dated May 10, 1962. The relevant portion of that Notification was in the following terms :- "The Central Government hereby exempts with effect from 24th April, 1962 iron and steel products falling under item No, 26-AA of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 if made from another article falling under the said item and having already paid the appropriate amount of duty, from so much of the duty of excise as is equivalent to the duty payable on the said article." The effect of this Notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of duty had been made at the time when the goods were removed from the factory of the appellant. As pointed out by this Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Company of India Ltd., 1978 E.L.T. (JA16) (S.C.) = (1973) 1 S.C.R. 822. Rule 10 pre-supposes an assessment which could be re-opened on specific grounds within the period specified therein. The relative scope and applicability of Rules 10 and 10A were considered in detail by this Court in the said decision and it was explained "that Rule 10 should be confined to cases where the demand is being made for a short levy caused wholly by one of the reasons given in that rule so that an assessment has to be reopened". The said decision has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
