COLLECTOR OF C EX Vs. K R METAL INDUSTRIES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid appeals are filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay II, against a single order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, bearing No. SKM-67 to 72/B-II-344 to 349/88 (File No. V-2 (68) 2199 to 2204/88) dated 13-1-1989.

(2.) Brief fact for the purpose of disposal of these appeals can be stated as below.

(3.) SHRI K.M. Mondal, the learned SDR for the Department, stated that short levies were pointed out with regard to the assessment returns for the months of July 78, October 78, November 78, December 78, February 79 and March 79. In all these cases baring July 78, short levy has been pointed out and the assessment completed and they were also received by the assessee within the time limit. The Collector (Appeals) has not appreciated the provision of Rule 1731, wherein the Assessing Officer is required to point out the short levy on the RT-12 returns and which should be paid by debit in the PLA within a period of ten days. He also stated that it is a settled law that assessment is a quasi-judicial function and hence the appellants have also taken the assessment on RT-12 returns by way of appeal before the Collector (Appeals). He also contended that in the case of (the judgment of the Bombay High Court) Swan Mill Ltd. Bombay and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1989 (25) ECR18 (Bombay), the High Court has held that where assessment under Rule 1731 of the Central Excise Rules has been completed, demand notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act is unnecessary and irrelevant and not called for. They have also taken into consideration the judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Kosan Metal Products Ltd. reported in 1988 (38) ELT 573 (SC) and held that notwithstanding the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, demand made on RT-12 returns in terms of Rule 1731 is perfectly valid and no notice under Section 11A of the Act is called for. He also referred to the decision of the South Regional Bench in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore v. Karnataka Scooters Ltd. reported in 1983 ECR 745D (Cegat Madras), wherein the South Regional Bench held that the amount indicated by the Supdt. on the RT-12 return is payable and should have been debited to the personal Ledger Account within ten days of the receipt of the RT-12 by the assessee. He also contended that since the assessment or RT-12 is a quasi judicial function and is an adjudication order, there is no need for another parallel proceedings by issue of show cause notice. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Collector (Appeals) is required to be set aside and the matters be remanded for consideration of the respondents appeals on merits.