Final Order No. 842/98-D arising from in Appeal No. C/2563/90-D. Case: Collector of C. Ex., Guntur Vs Sudhakar Litho Printers. Central Information Commission
| Case Number | Final Order No. 842/98-D arising from in Appeal No. C/2563/90-D |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR and For Respondents: Shri V.J. Francis, Advocate. |
| Judges | Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J) |
| Issue | Central Excise Act |
| Judgement Date | August 19, 1998 |
| Court | Central Information Commission |
Order:
Lajja Ram, Member (T), (New Delhi)
-
In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the order-in-appeal dated 15-3-1990 is under challenge. The matter relates to the additional demand, under communication dated 16-12-1988 read with communication dated 28-7-1989 both issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Vijayawada, for the period April, 1982 to November, 1982. The Additional demand was of Rs 1,41,804.72. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had observed that no show cause notice was issued for the demand in question and that as the classification lists had been finally approved on 2-4-1983, the demand was hit by time-bar as the same had been made after a period of five years.
-
We have heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the appellants/Revenue. Shri V.J. Francis, Advocate, appeared for the respondents, M/s Sudhakar Litho Printers.
-
Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, submitted that the assessments were provisional. Even when the classification list has been finally approved, the assessments were not finalised, and they were finalised only after the order of the Tribunal in which the plea taken by the Revenue had been accepted with regard to the classification of the goods in dispute. It was his submission that the additional demand was not bit by time-bar as the assessments were provisional. He pleaded for setting aside the order-in-appeal and for remanding the matter back to the appellate authority for decision on merits.
-
In reply, Shri V.J. Francis, Advocate, submitted that the assessments had been finalised on 2-4-1983 under a speaking order passed by the Asst. Collector of Central Excise and that no show cause notice had been issued and no hearing had been given and that the Superintendent of Central Excise through his communication had demanded the duty which the assessee was asked to pay within 10 days of the receipt of the letter and the same was not regular. He referred to the observations of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and submitted that the view taken by the appellate authority was correct and legal.
-
We have carefully considered the matter. We find that under a speaking Order No. 1/83, dated 2-4-1983, the Asst. Collector of Central Excise had accorded final approval to the classification list Nos. 2/82-83, dated 8-4-1982 and classification list No. 11/82-83, dated 2-6-1983. This order of the Asst. Collector of Central Excise was in favour of the assessee. The Department filed an appeal against this order of...
To continue reading
Request your trial