9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (7) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of Rs.1,546.25. The amount also included sales-tax. These goods were cleared from the factory of the petitioner firm in the presence of the Inspector of Central Excise on payment of appropriate excise duty after filling the prescribed AR 1 form. On 22nd May, 1969 i.e. after a period of about three years respondent No. 2 issued a notice under Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) alleging that the petitioner firm had sold one Beverage Cooler compete with condencing Unit and electric motor from their licence premises without payment of Central Excise duty leviable thereon. The notice directed the petitioner firm to show cause as to why the goods mentioned in the said notice should not be confis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if there was short levy of excise duty the respondent could issue notice only under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was contended that the goods in question were cleared after duly submitting AR 1 form and obtaining the Gate Pass from the Excise Inspector incharge of the petitioners' factory and Rule 9 of the Rules would be applicable only if there had been clandestine removal of excisable goods and not otherwise. Learned Counsel further contended that the two receipts were issued for the goods which could be used by the customers independently. The learned Counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods with the knowledge and consent of the authorities. Rule 10 provides for recovery of duties not leviable or not paid or short levied or not paid in full or erroneously refunded. In order to recover duties which are erroneously refunded or not levied or short levied or not paid the notice has to be issued on the person chargeable with the duty within six months from the relevant date. In the present case, the goods were cleared on 7th January, 1966 and the notice was issued on 22nd May, 1969. Assuming that the notice was under Rule 10 even then since it was issued after a period of three years it was clearly beyond time. 5. In my view, therefore, the notice dated 22nd May, 1969 under Rule 9(2) of the Rules were illegal and therefore ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
