9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 150X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as charged at the doubled yarn stage under Tariff Item No. 18 (III) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff @ Rs. 18 per kg. From February 28, 1982 the excise duty was reduced to Rs. 9/- per kg. The respondent paid duty on the doubled yarn cleared after February 27, 1982 @ Rs. 9/- per kg. On February 7, 1986 a show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise wherein it was mentioned that there was short payment of excise duty by the respondent to the extent of Rs. 6,02,159.60 p. in respect of the duty chargeable on single ply yarn removed for doubling purpose prior to February 28, 1982 in respect of closing stock of 52,992.7 kgs. of double yarn in packed condition on February 27, 1982. It was stated in the said show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise by his order dated March 1, 1985, accepted the contention of the respondent that there was no short payment of excise duty and dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice. Since the Assistant Collector had found in favour of the respondent on merits he did not deal with the submission regarding bar of limitation raised by the respondent in the reply to the show cause notice. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the said order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) was agreeing with the view of the Assistant Collector, he also did not consider it necessary to examine the plea of limitation raised by the respondent in the reply to show cause noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was present. In the reply to the show cause notice the respondent had specifically raised the plea that there was no ground for invoking the extended period of limitation. The Assistant Collector as well as by the Collector (Appeals) did not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect because on mertis they found that there was no short payment of duty. But that does not mean that the respondent did not raise the plea of limitation before the excise authorities. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the observations of one of the members of the Tribunal that the matter of limitation had not been raised before the lower authorities. 4. We have already mentioned that there was nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
