9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... April, 1978, issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, whereby free sugar and levy sugar produced in a sugar factory during the period 1st May, 1978 to 30th September, 1978 was exempt at the rate therein specified if it was in excess of the average production of the corresponding period of the preceding three sugar years. On 6th October, 1978 an order was made by the Chief Accounts Officer, Central Excise, Kanpur, which stated that the appellants' rebate claim had been pre-audited as admissible under the said Notification and, on the excess production of sugar eligible for rebate of 62022.76 quintals, rebate was admissible for the sum of Rs. 15,59,252.18. 3.On 30th July, 1979 the Superintendent, Central Ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Saharanpur, confirmed the demand made by the notice. He dealt first with the merits of the claim to rebate and then stated :- "Since the amount of rebate was much more than the duty actually paid the party should have informed the department about this fact and also should have themself paid the excess amount by making a debit entry in the P.L.A. and the .206 free sale sugar which they have cleared as levy sugar and enjoyed the rebate @ Rs. 54/- instead of Rs. 9.60 was incorrect,. This fact they should have also informed the department and by concealing all these facts they have made wilful mis-statement and suppressed the fact with the intention to evade payment of duty. The show cause notice issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the circumstances of the case, the demand was time-barred. He also argued that, in any event, the demand was unjustified. We are not inclined to go in the second aspect for we are satisfied on the first. 8.In reply to the first contention aforestated, learned counsel for the authorities submitted that the appellants had not taken the ground that the show cause notice was ultra vires before the High Court; they had only contended that it was time-barred. 9.We have set out the relevant parts of the show cause notice. It speaks of an erroneously granted rebate. There is no mention in it of any collusion, wilful mis-statement or suppression of fact by the appellants for the purposes of availing of the larger period of five years for the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
