HEAVY ENGINEERING CORPN. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are ten appeals filed by M/s. Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd., a public sector undertaking being aggrieved with the Order -in -Appeal dt. 13.1.1989 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta. In his Order -in -Appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rejected the appeals in so far as they related to the period June, 1982 to October, 1982 and December 1982 to January 1983. He observed that the appellant did not file appeal against Orders of the range Superintendent recorded on the relevant RT -12 returns and they also failed to file appeal after the Assistant Collector of Central Excise wrote to them on 5/7.3.1983 asking them to file appeals. The party took more than six months time in filing the appeals when calculated from the date of the letter from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. As the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had no jurisdiction to entertain any appeal filed beyond three months period extended by another three months period, he held that he had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of the case. The appeals for that period as given above were rejected. Regarding the period February, 1983 to April, 1983 appeals were filed beyond three months but within six months time. While agreeing with the appellants that the suo -motu decision by the Superintendent was a clear departure from the past practice, raising of demand without affording opportunity to the appellant was not enforceable, he however added that he was not expressing any final view in the matter and remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

(2.) ARGUING for the appellants Shri N. Mookherjee, Ld. Advocate and Shri B.J. Mookherjee, Ld. Advocate submitted that when the appellate authority had observed that the demands were not enforceable he should not have remanded the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Collector of Central Excise. They submitted that with regard to the iron and steel products by steel plants the later the better principle in paying duty was being followed and the appellants were paying excise duty on the products in the form finally cleared from the plant. For a number of years no duty was being paid on inter -plant transfers and even after the amendment of Rule 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules as the item was covered by set off/proforma credit procedure, no change in this practice was called for. It was their plea that the appellants were also not clear from the Order as what was the demand against them. They have already paid Rs. 6.8 lakhs in terms of the Tribunal's stay Order. They pleaded that the Order of the Collector (Appeals) was not sustainable.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the matter. We find that for the period June 1982 to October 1982 and December 1982 to January 1983 the appeal was filed by the appellants beyond the period of limitation. This has not been disputed by the appellants. We therefore consider that in so far as this period is concerned there is no infirmity in the view taken by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).