9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (7) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viable thereon in excess of 25% ad valorem. Another notification dated December 4, 1979 was issued providing exemption to Caprolactum manufactured from Benzene (derived from raw naphtha) on which the appropriate amount of duty of excise was already paid from so much of the duty of excise leviable on such Caprolactum as was in excess of 23% ad valorem. It is the claim of the petitioners that under mistake, the duty was paid by ignoring exemption notification dated December 4, 1979 at the rate of 25% ad valorem. 2. On March 3, 1980 and July 8, 1980, the petitioners filed revision applications in respect of excise duty of 2% paid in respect of imports effected from September 1979 to February 1980. The refund applications were rejected by Ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was withdrawn by Assistant Collector of Central Excise by order dated July 29, 1982. 3. On October 11, 1982, the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 were amended and sub-section (4) of Section 129D was introduced conferring power upon the Collector of Central Excise to call for papers from any subordinate officer and determine whether an appeal is required to be filed. In exercise of powers, the Collector of Central Excise by order dated April 7, 1983, a copy of which is annexed as Exh.'Q' to the petition, directed the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to make an application to Collector of Customs (Appeals) for examining and setting aside the order dated July 29, 1982 passed by the Assistant Collector withdrawing show-cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y rightly that the order withdrawing demand show cause notice was passed on July 29, 1982 in view of the finality to the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) in respect of payment of refund. It was contended that once the refund applications were allowed on the ground that the liability of the petitioners was to pay duty at the rate of 23% ad valorem then the question of short levy of duty can never arise and the action of the Collector of Customs in directing the Assistant Collector to file an appeal against the order of withdrawal of demand notice is entirely redundant. The submission is correct and deserves acceptance. Shri Sanklecha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the department, could not dispute that the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
