HOOGHLY DOCK AND PORT ENGINEERS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the order of Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dated 27-4-1985 rejecting the appellant's plea for reassessment of RT-12 return for the month of April, 1983. THE appellants manufactured and cleared Tug Mahavir' an ocean going vessel for Kandla Port Trust and cleared the same on 23-4-1983 on payment of Excise duty. THE monthly RT-12 return for April, 1983 showing payment of duty on the said vessel cleared on 23-4-1983 was submitted by the appellants and received by the department on 11-5-1983 along with the relevant documents. THE RT-12 return of the appellants was assessed by the Superintendent on 28-11 -1984. THE appellants herein filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority contending that the Superintendent had assessed the appellant's RT-12 without affording an opportunity of being heard and had, in fact, predated the date as 28-11 -1984 when, as a matter of fact, he made the assessment only in December, 1984. It was urged that the appellants moved the Assistant Collector in regard to the RT-12 assessment in question and the Assistant Collector directed the appellants to get in touch with the Superintendent of Central Excise, and the Superintendent antedated RT 12 to the detriment of the appellants. THE impugned order was, therefore, assailed as not tenable in law.

(2.) Shri Thakur, learned SDR, contended that admittedly the appellants had not claimed the benefit of any exemption notification in the classification list filed by it in regard to the goods in question manufactured and cleared and in such a situation when the classification was approved by the authorities as per law as filed by the appellant, the appellant would not get any benefit at all at the hands of the Superintendent in RT-12 assessment. The learned SDR further urged that the Superintendent does not have any authority to give the appellant while assessing RT-12 returns the benefit of any exemption notification which admittedly had not been claimed by the appellant in the classification list.