9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities. The Company had claimed that manufacture of Electrical Laminations and Stampings are liable to payment of excise duty under Tariff Item No. 28A of the First Schedule. 2. After the Classification List was approved by the Excise Authorities on June 18, 1980, the Company preferred Writ Petition No. 31466/1981 under Article 226 of the Constitution in this Court to challenge the validity of Entry 28A and the classification and levy of excise duty on Electrical Laminations and Stampings manufactured by the Company. On institution of the writ petition, the Company secured order on December 10, 1981. The learned Single Judge admitted the petition and issued injunction restraining the Department from taking any steps or proceedings whatso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is revised by the Assistant Collector. 3. On March 21, 1988, the Assistant Collector of Excise, Bangalore, served show cause notice upon the Company after setting out the relevant facts mentioned hereinabove. The show cause notice calls upon the Company to explain why the Laminations manufactured should not be classified as the Electrical Laminations falling under erstwhile Tariff Item 28A and now excisable under Chapter 83 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The show cause notice further calls upon the Company to explain why the central excise duty of Rs. 1,75,75,571.67 paise provisionally assessed should not be finally assessed and recovered. The show cause notice further calls upon the Company to explain why the refund claimed sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 11A of the Act. It was urged that the Excise Authorities had not passed any order of provisional assessment as contemplated under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules and the claim made in the show cause notice on that count, is not correct. It was then urged that the earlier Writ Petition filed by the Company ended in dismissal on October 4, 1985 and restraint issued by this Court came to an end. The learned Counsel submitted that order of provisional assessment was passed after a period of more than 6 months from that date and consequently the show cause notice should be struck down as issued beyond period of limitation. We are unable to find any merit in the contention. In the first instance, the Excise Authorities were restrained from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Section 11A of the Act cannot be imported while determining the duty payable under Rule 173-I of the Rules. The Division Bench further held that the assumption that the recovery can only be made by resorting to Section 11A is not correct and the assessment when completed under Rule 173-I, the question of recovery under [Section] 11A of the Act did not arise. In view of the decision of the Division Bench with which we are in agreement, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the show cause notice was issued beyond period prescribed under Section 11A cannot be accepted. The contention that the Excise Authorities had not passed an order of provisional assessment till the date of service of show cause notice under ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
