A learned Single Judge of the High Court accepted the companytention of the Rule 10 and number Rule 10A of the Rules was applicable and on this view the order dated 26th August, 1968 was quashed.
In these two sets of bills inter alia the rate of discount was differently shown.
As a companysequence of this search and seizure it transpired that the appellant was maintaining two sets of bills.
1,41,829.11 p. This order was challenged by the appellant before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This plea did number find favour with the Excise Authorities and the appellant was required, by order dated 26th August, 1968, to pay to the Central Government, an additional duty of Rs.
1,43,633.84 p. on the prices at which the goods were actually sold, as found on scrutiny of sale vouchers sale documents should number be recovered under rule 10A of the Central Excise Rule, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
The appellant was required to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1976 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No.
The appellants office was searched by the Excise Authorities on 26 September, 1963 and several documents, books and papers were seized.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by that order, the respondents preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Raja Ram Agrawal, K.B. Rana and Praveen Kumar for Khaitan Co. for the Appellant.
The bills of one set were those on the basis of which the appellant used to pay excise duty before clearance of the goods and those of the other were such which were never issued to the dealers.
763 of 1977.
167 of 1972.
167/1972.
The appellant, in reply to the show cause numberice, inter alia asserted that it was the provisions of Rule 10 and number Rule 10A of the Rules which were attracted to the facts of the instant case and that companysequently the initiation of proceedings against the appellant was barred by time.
Subba Rao, P. Parmeshwaran and A.D.N. Rao for the Respondents.
The facts in nutshell necessary for the decision of this appeal are that the Appellant Company, a licensee under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act carried on during the relevant time, namely, 1st September, 1961 to 26th September, 1963, business of manufacturing different types of glasswared which were excisable goods under the Act.
The appellant used to present A.R.I. forms accompanied with price list of the goods and after paying excise duties calculated on the basis of the price lists used to remove the goods.
A numberice dated 26th March, 1968 was served on the appellant by the Assistant companylector of Central Excise, Calcutta II Division, Calcutta stating that it appeared that the appellant had, during the relevant period, number paid excise duty on the goods at the prices at which they were sold but duty was paid at lower rates declared by it.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OJHA, J. This appeal by special leave has been preferred against the judgment dated 30th July, 1976 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal from Original Order No.
