9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (1) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . According to it, the latter type of blankets are known as 'baby blankets'. Further since the petitioner had opted for 'self-removal procedure' as mentioned in Chapter 7-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (for short, the Rules), it removed some baby blankets during the period February 1977 to May 1977 by debiting excise duty at the tariff value of Rs. 25/- per kg. This, according to it, was done in the light of notification No. 4/77-G.E. dated January 17, 1977 (Annexure P.1) issued by the Government of India, laying down the tariff value of the blankets the relevant part of which reads as follows : "In exercise of powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) ..... fixes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner impugns these notices/reminders on two grounds - firstly, prior to the issuance of these notices/reminders no notice as envisaged by Rule 10 of the Rule was issued to it and in the absence of the same the present notices stand vitiated and secondly, the petitioner has been discriminated in not accepting the goods cleared by it as 'baby blankets' vis-a-vis the similar goods manufactured and cleared by another concern known as 'M/s. Raj Dyeing and Mills Works, Sultanwind Road, Amritsar'. The order of the Appellate Collector dated June 20, 1981, subjecting the shoddy baby blankets cleared by that concern to duty at the tariff rate of Rs. 25/- per kg. is placed on the records of this case as Annexure P.12. 4. As against this the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being made within three months from the date on which the duty or charge was paid or adjusted in the owners account-current, if any, or from the date of making the refund." The argument of Mr. Seth is that since the petitioner had described the goods cleared by it as 'baby blankets' which according to the departmental authorities was a mis-description and had short-levied the duty thereupon, the provisions of this Rule were clearly attracted to the facts of the case in hand. To my mind, the learned counsel is misconstruing the language of the Rule the relevant part of which has already been reproduced above. It is only when as a result of the mis-description of the goods by an owner the authorities under the Act levy a lessor duty and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
