9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... patnam issued show cause notice on 17th November, 1983 in exercise of his power under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), calling upon the first petitioner to show cause why an amount of Rs. 33,87,138.13 should not be collected from it towards the basic excise duty and 5% of special excise duty on the basic excise duty for the period 23rd October, 1977 to 22nd October, 1982. Considering the reply to the said notice and after personal hearing, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Division-II, passed his order on 12th November, 1984 holding the first petitioner liable to pay the excise duty as aforesaid. No appeal was preferred against the said order. The said order thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A or Section 11B of the Act, but were concerned with Section 11C of the Act. It was further held that though the petitioners had not preferred any appeal against the order dated 12th November, 1984 of the Assistant Collector of Excise confirming the demand, that does not permit the excise authorities to recover the amount which the Central Government by its aforesaid Notification had exempted from recovery. The question was not finality of the order of the Assistant Collector of Excise but the execution of the said order consistent with the aforesaid Notification. The aforesaid Notification of the Central Government if given effect to, there was no doubt that the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of exemption from payment o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovember, 1984 of the Assistant Collector of Excise which, as indicated, had become final. Again, it was a demand admittedly not covered by the aforesaid notification. In short, what is now being demanded from the petitioners is only small balance out of the original larger demand. There is no dispute that the amount collected is as per the date and material supplied by the petitioners themselves for the said period. There is also no dispute about the rate of duty charges. We, therefore, see no justification why the said demand should be stayed. In fact, it was the amount which the petitioners were liable to pay all throughout and even during the pendency of the earlier writ petition. Decision of the writ petition does not exempt the petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
