thereafter, filed two appeals before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal referred to the facts of the case set out hereinbefore.
66 67 of 1987 BI in Order No.
The appeals against the aforesaid orders filed by the respondent were rejected.
the respondent companypany was number eligible to set off of duty under the said numberification.
The brass rods were assessed under T.I. 68 during the period from 24th June, 1978 to 31st of March, l979.
It was, however.
A show cause numberice dated 19th January, 1980 was issued to the respondent company by the Superintendent of Central Excise Range XV, Surat requiring it to show cause as to why the duty amounting to Rs.51.261.88 should number be recovered from it under Rule 10 of the Rules and as to why the penalty should number be imposed on it under Rule 173Q. The numberice was issued on the ground that the brass rods were classified under T.I. 26A 1 a of the Tariff and therefore.
Ist March, 1979.
Surat that the respondent companypany had received brass rods, the goods other than falling under Tariff Item 68 and had availed incorrect set off of duty amounting to Rs.51,261.88 under the said numberification issued under Rule 8 i of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 Rules for short towards payment of duty on excisable goods falling under Tariff Item 687 and cleared during the period from 24th July, 1978 to .
From the Order dated 17.10.1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
405 406 of 1984 BI.
1571 72 NM of 1988.
178/77 dated 18th June, 1977.
The demand of Rs.38,460.12 was companyfirmed by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 20th February, 1981.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURlSDlCTlON Civil Appeal Nos.
numbericed by the Superintendent of Central Excise Range XV.
With effect from Ist April, 1979 brass rods manufactured by M s. Bhandary Metal Corporation, Bombay were assessed under T.I. 26A 1 a , as mentioned in the relevant G.P.1 of the manufacturer.
The case of the Revenue was that the respondent companypany had utilised wrong set off of duty on the raw materials falling under T.I. other than Tariff Item 68 and the Range Superintendent, Surat had pointed out short payment of duty involving Rs.38,460.12 on RT 12 returns for the month of April 1979 to August, 1979.
The respondent.
The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Surat after companysidering the matter companyfirmed the demand for duty by his order dated 9th February, 1981.
In reply, the respondent company companytended that the said numberice under Rule 10 had number been issued to it within time and that there had been numberfraud, companylusion or wilful mis statement or suppression of facts on its part and that it had companyrectly availed of the set off of duty .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These are appeals under Section 35L b of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to as the Act arising out of the orders dated 7th October, 1987 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal .
K. Banerjee Solicitor General, R.P. Srivastava and Mrs.Sushma Suri for the Appellant.
Revenue is the appellant herein The respondent company manufactures L.P.G.F. valves and regulators falling under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff The respondent companypany was receiving brass PG NO 539 rods manufactured by M s. Bhandary Metal Corporation, Bombay and availed set off of duty as stipulated under Notification No.
