9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (4) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estine removal of tobacco from L.2 premises situate at No. 50, Palayam Bazaar Road, Tiruchirapalli. 2. It is stated inter alia in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioner Abdul Jabbar was holding a L.2 Licence, No. 93/72 for about seven year prior to the filing of the writ petition and was specially authorised to manufacture smoking mixture for pipes. He was receiving tobacco for such manufacture after payment of duty at the appropriate rates. He was carrying OB business and stocking the said tobacco at his L.2 premises on Palayam Bazaar Road, Woraiyur, Tiruchi-3. While so; on 23-12-1976 the Inspector of Central Excise, Tiruchi, visited the business premises of the petitioner and verified the accounts, when ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le 173Q(i)(e) and Rule 53 read with Rule 210 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice, pointing out that the imposition of penalty under the Rules was not justified and warranted and the imposition of duty under Rule 9(2) on 450.250 kgs. of smoking mixture for pipes valued at Rs. 16,226.75 P. was illegal. Finally, he contended that he had not committed any offence under the Rules and that his having manufactured smoking mixture from 1-3-1973 under L.2 licence instead of L.4 licence was not, however, wilful. The Collector did not accept the explanation, but passed the impugned order holding that the manufacture of smoking mixture fell under Tariff Item 411 [3](4) of the Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner on 28-10-1980 to the Central Government. It is contended that the appellate as well as the revisional authorities have not properly applied the principle laid down in Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality (AIR 1976 SC 105). In this regard Head-note appearing at page 105 of the report which is as follows, is relied on by learned Counsel for the petitioner :- "There is an important departure made by the Limitation Act, 1963 in so far as the provision contained in Section 29, sub-section (2) is concerned. Since, under the Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 is specifically made applicable by Section 29 sub-section (2), it can be availed of for the purpose of extending the period of limitation prescribed by a special or local law if the appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 E.L.T. 592) and submitted that the above provisions in Chapter VI-A of the Act are not applicable to this case and as and when the appeal was preferred, the limitation that was then prescribed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was applicable so far as the condonation of delay is concerned, and the provisions of Section 5 and Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act are not applicable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, submits that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, read together with the ratio in Mangu Ram v. Delhi Municipality (AIR 1976 SC 105) would reveal that any delay that occurs even in the case of proceedings before a quasi-judicial or an executive authority can be the subject-matter of condonation and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
