9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concluded, in favour of the revenue, by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rollatainers Ltd. v. UOI & Ors. - 1994 (72) E.L.T. 793 (S.C.) = JT 1994 (4) SC 458 and, therefore, in the light of the said judgment rule should be discharged. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners, however, pointed out that although on merits the issue appeared to have been decided against the assessees in Rollatainers case, (supra) but the main issue raised in the petition, challenging the impugned orders, was that the impugned notices issued under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (for short the Act) were barred by limitation and the levy illegal. It was stated that the point had been decided in favour of the assessees by the Supreme Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... industry. On a tentative view that the order of the Appellate Collector was not correct, legal and proper, the Central Government, in exercise of powers vested in it under Section 36(2) of the Act issued notices to the assessees asking them to show cause as to why the appellate orders should not be reviewed and set aside. On a consideration of the replies filed on behalf of the assessees, the Central Government concluded that the printing cartons have to be classified as a product of packaging industry, classifiable in Item 68 of the Schedule and that the products manufactured by the assessees were not products of the printing industry eligible for the benefit of concession under Notification No. 55/75, dated 1 March, 1975, as amended. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f any proceeding in which any decision or order has been passed under Sections 35 or 35(A) of the principal Act, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to its correctness, legality or propriety and to pass such order thereon as it thinks fit. The second proviso thereto states that "no proceedings shall be commenced under this sub-section in respect of any decision or order (whether such decision or order has been passed before or after the coming into force of this sub-section) after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of such decision or order". The third proviso to Section 36(2) reads thus : "Provided also that where the Central Government is of opinion that any duty of excise has not been levied or has been short-levie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India. The Supreme Court held that in a case of non-levy or short levy of excise duty, the time limit within which a person could be asked to show cause why he should not pay the amount is six months from the relevant date. In that view of the matter, show cause notices having been issued by the Central Government to the petitioners admittedly beyond the period of six months from the order of the Appellate Collector, they are entitled to succeed on this short ground alone and it is unnecessary for us to consider the other contentions raised in the petition against the impugned show cause notices. Consequently the writ petitions are allowed and the impugned notices are quashed. Rule made absolute.
No costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
