The Collector of Central Excise Vs. Standard Alkali Chemicals

The Collector of Central Excise vs Standard Alkali Chemicals

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Mar 03, 1983

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/150

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/150
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: H Chander, D T K.S.
Decided On: Mar 03, 1983
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

The Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Standard Alkali Chemicals

Legal References

Reported In: (1983)LC614DTri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....of n.b. sanjana v.elphinstone spg. & wvg. co. ltd. which has been cited by shri chitnis for the respondents. as per this decision, it is seen that there was assessment of the chlorine-gas and therefore rule 10-a was not applicable. the correct rule applicable in the case is rule 10 and therefore, the appellate collector's order upholding the applicability of this rule and also the time-limit thereunder is correct. since the supdt's demand notice is dated 30.8.78 while the period for demand extends from 1.5.71 to 31.3.77, it is clearly time-barred under the provisions of rule 10 as then in force. in this view, we find that the order of the appellate collector is correct. coming to the cross-objection dated nil received on 10.2.83, it is seen that through this cross-objection m/s. standard alkali chemicals seek to uphold the validity of the appellate collector's order. they do not seek to vary the same. in the aforesaid circumstances, there can be no cross-objection in the matter. in view of the foregoing facts, we confirm the appellate collector's order; reject the appeal of the collector of central excise, bombay ii and dismiss the cross-objection of m/s. standard alkali chemicals as not tenable.

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II against order No. V-2(14H)2404/80 dated 28.6.82 of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. M/s. Standard Alkali, (Chemical Division) of the Standard Mills Co. Ltd. have filed a cross-objection in this appeal. Sfiri N.K. Pattenkar for the appellant has submitted after detailed arguments that the Appellate Collector's order dated 28.6.82 is not correct and the order of the Assistant Collector No.V(14H)3-39/78 dated 22.9.80 is correct. He has, therefore, prayed that the Assistant Collector's order be restored. Shri Chitnis has submitted on behalf of M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals that, the Assistant Collector in his order dated 22.9.80 has discussed Rules 9(2), 10 and 10-A with reference to the demands issued to M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals and after rejecting the applicability of Rules 9(2) and 10, he has held that Rule 10-A is the appropriate rule and thus confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 42,266.01. In this behalf he had also relied on the Supreme Court's judgement in the case of N.B.Sanjana v. Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. 1973 Cen-Cus July vi SC ECR C 368 SC. Shri Chitnis has drawn our attention to this judgement. He has argued that Rule 9(2) was not applied in this case as there was no surreptitious removal of goods. Similarly, the Assistant Collector's reliance on Rule 10-A is not correct as there had been assessment and the only Rule which was applicable was Rule 10 as in existence then. In this view, the order dated 28.6.82 of the Appellate Collector was correct and did not require any change. For this reason, Shri Chitnis has opposed the appeal.

2. We have examined the submission on both the sides. The question for our consideration is applicability of the correct rule for demanding the duty from M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals. The appellant has attacked the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise Bombay on the ground that the same is incorrect and illegal and that the order of the Assistant Collector in confirming the demand under Rule 10-A was correct. The applicability of the correct rule was the subject matter of the decision by the Supreme Court in the case of N.B. Sanjana v.Elphinstone Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. which has been cited by Shri Chitnis for the respondents. As per this decision, it is seen that there was assessment of the chlorine-gas and therefore Rule 10-A was not applicable. The correct rule applicable in the case is Rule 10 and therefore, the Appellate Collector's order upholding the applicability of this rule and also the time-limit thereunder is correct. Since the Supdt's demand notice is dated 30.8.78 while the period for demand extends from 1.5.71 to 31.3.77, it is clearly time-barred under the provisions of Rule 10 as then in force. In this view, we find that the order of the Appellate Collector is correct. Coming to the cross-objection dated nil received on 10.2.83, it is seen that through this cross-objection M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals seek to uphold the validity of the Appellate Collector's order. They do not seek to vary the same. In the aforesaid circumstances, there can be no cross-objection in the matter. In view of the foregoing facts, we confirm the Appellate Collector's order; reject the appeal of the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II and dismiss the cross-objection of M/s. Standard Alkali Chemicals as not tenable.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties The Collector of Central Excise vs Standard Alkali Chemicals Same Subject Customs Same Judge H Chander, D T K.S.