LexCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA versus KOSAN METAL PRODUCTS LIMITED
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BARODA
v.
KOSAN META.L PRODUCTS LIMITED
OCTOBER 26, 1988
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JJ.]
Central Excises and Salt Act 1944/Central Excise Rules 1944--
Section 11-A/Rules 8,
JO & 11-Assessee-Manufacturing .LPGF
valves and regulators-Brass rods prepared by another company-'Set-
ofj' duty availed of on the brass rods-Later found that set-off duty was
incorrectly allowed-issue of recovery notice-Validity of.
The respondent-company manufactures L.P.G.F. valves and
regulators falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. It
was receiving brass rods manufactured by another company of Bombay
and availed of the set-off of duty as stipulated under Notification No.
178 .. 77 dated 18th June, 1977. The brass rods were assessed under T.I.
68 during the period from 24th July, 1978 to 31st March, 1979. With
effect from !st April, 1979 brass rods manufactured by the Bombay
Company were assessed under T.I. 26A(l)(a).
A
c
D
The Superintendent of Central Excise Range XV, Surat, noticed
that the respondent-company had received brass rods, the goods other
E
than falling node~ Tariff Item 68 and had availed of the incorrect set-off
of duty under the said notification. The respondent-Company was
required to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs.51,261.88
should not be recovered from it under Rule I 0 and why penalty should
not be imposed on it under Rule l 73Q. In reply, the respoi1dent-
Company contended that the notice under Rule 10 had not been issued
p
to it within time, that there had been no fraud, collusion or wilful
mis-statement or suppressio!' of facts on its part and that it had cor-
rectly availed of the 'set-off' of duty.
The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand for duty, and the
appeals against his orders were rejected.
G
The Tribunal while allowing the claim of the respondent, took the
view that the classification lists had been finalised by the Bombay Col-
lectorate, and the Assistant Collector, Surat had no authority to
re•open those assessment.
537
H
\
B
c
D
E
F
538
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
{1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.
Dismissing the appeals of the Revenue, this Court,
HELD: J. Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act,
1944 provides that when any. duty of excise has not been levied or
paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded,
a notice may be served on the concerned person within a period of six
months. [541G]
In the instant case, the time taken for the service of the notice is
beyond a period of six months. Therefore, it does not appear that a
proper notice was issued. [541Gl
2. Merely on the ground of short-entry in RT-12, Rule 10
would not he attracted. When in such circumstances, a demand is made
under the Act for recovery theh ~uch demand must be under s. II-A of
the Act. [540A-B}
Good Shepherd Rubber Company's case (1978 ELT 66) aflkmed.
3. There is no ground which supports the allegation that there
had been fraud, collusion or any wilful mis-statements or suppression of
facts on the part of the respondent. Rule II-A, therefore, clearly applies
to the facts of the instant case. [542BJ
·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.
l5i 1-72 (NM) of 1988.
From the Order dated 17. I0.1987 of the Customs Excise and
Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No. 66 &
(J 7 of 1987 -BI in Order No. 405 & 406 of 1984 Bl.
M.K. Banerjee, Solicitor General, R.P. Srivastava and Mrs.
Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
SABYASACiil MUKHARJl, J, These are appeals under Section
3SL(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereitiafter referred
to as 'the Act') arising out of the orders dated 1th October, 1987 of the
Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter
referred to as 'the tribunal'). Revenue is the appellant herein. The
respondent-company manufactures LP.G.F. valves and regulators
H falling under tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The res-
~1
COLLECTOR OF C.E. v. KOSAN METAL [MUKHARJI, J.]
539
pondent-company was receiving brass rods manufactured by M/s.
A
Bhandary Metal Corporation, Bombay and availed set off of duty as
stipulated under Notification No. 178/77 dated 18th June, 1977. The
brass rods were assessed under T.I. 68 during the period from 24th
June, 1978 to 3 lst of March, 1979. With effect from !st April, 1979
brass rods manufactured by. M/s. BhExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.