But that appeal was rejected by the Collector and the demands were companyfirmed.
Pursuant thereto, three revised demand numberices dated March 18, 1967 were issued to the appellant.
26 AA of the First Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter called the Act and that in any event the impugned demands were time barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the resort sought to be made to the provisions companytained in Rule 10 A was number legal or warranted.
Hence this appeal by the appellant.
The Assistant Collector by his order dated January 17, 1967 rejected the said companytention.
26 AA i as it stood at the relevant time was in the following terms Semi finished steel including blooms, billets, slabs, sheet bars, rods, companyls, wires, joists, girders, angles, channels, tees, beams, zeds, trough, pilling and all other rolled, forged or 1005 extruded shapes and sections number otherwise specified.
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.11.1970 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. No.
Neither of the aforesaid companytentions found favour with the High Court and accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.
In execution of the companytract entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, the appellant had companyverted 3000 metric tonnes of untested rails into M.S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of Re rolling.
The appellant filed a written representation to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad companytending that the demand for payment of excise duty on the M.S. Rounds was illegal since they had been Re rolled from rails which were exempt from levy of excise duty.
Gobind Das P.P. Rao, Miss Halida Khatun, R.N. Poddar and A.K. Ganguli for the Resondents.
56 of 1972.
A Revision Petition filed by the appellant to the Central Government also met with the same fate.
Accordingly, the quantity of 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails was supplied to the appellant by the 5th respondent during the period between 29.4.1964 to 23.2.1966 and the appellant duly executed the work and delivered the M.S. Rounds and received the Re rolling charges in accordance with the terms of the agreement.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
However, while doing so, he gave a direction to the Inspector of Central Excise to revise the demands in accordance with the rates of duty which were current during the different periods.
The last delivery of the finished products was effected by the appellant on 23.2.1966.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated November 5, 1970 on the strength of a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court.
The appellant is a firm carrying on business of Re rolling having its factory at Moosapet near Sanatnagar, Hyderabad.
C Anil B. Divan, D.N. Misra, Ashok Sagar and P.K. Rama Narain for the Appellant.
Thereafter the appellant filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking an appropriate writ quashing the numberices of demand on the ground that the M.S. Rounds in question were number liable to be assessed to duty under Item No.
Nearly eight months thereafter, on October 17, 1966 the 1004 Inspector of Central Excise, Ameerpet issued numberices to the appellant dated October 17, 1966 demanding payment of excise duty on the Rounds Re rolled by the petitioner from untested rails.
A companytract was entered into between the appellant and the 5th respondent, whereby the appellant undertook to companyvert 3000 metric tonnes of second class untested rails into M.S. Rounds of different specifications by the process of Re rolling.
3354 of 1968.
me demand numberices were purported to have been issued under Rule 10 A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
The appellant thereupon preferred an appeal to the Collector, Central Excise, Hyderabad.
