Harish Chander, Member (J)

1. M/s. Mohan and Company, Madras had filed a Revision Application to the Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi being aggrieved from order in Appeal No. 1502/79 (A.No. 341/ 74, C.No. V/4/341/79), dated 30-10-1979 passed by Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The said Revision Application stands transferred to the Tribunal in terms of provisions of Section 35P of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 to be disposed of as an appeal.

2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Mohan and Company are having L-4, Licence No. 4/75, and the appellants are manufacturer's of snuff. In terms of Notification No. 124/75 , dated 12-5-1975 the rate of duty on snuff, whose value did not exceed Rs. 10/- per Kg., was 75 paise per Kg, and on snuff, whose value exceeded Rs. 10/- per Kg., was Rs. 2/-per Kg. The appellant had declared in AR-1, the value at Rs. 10/- per Kg. Besides this, the appellant had charged .02 paise per Kg. on account of Dharmada (charity) receipts, which was part of the invoice. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Madras had issued a show cause notice No. 15/77, dated 30-3-1977 to the effect that the appellant had cleared 6788.750 kgs. of snuff for the period 1-3-75 to 30-9-1975 and had to pay a duty at Rs. 8,485.91 and had also cleared from 1-10-1975 to 4-3-1977, 3,0812 kgs of snuff and the duty was to be paid at Rs. 3,8515.30 and the total duty works out at Rs. 75,201 whereas the appellant had paid duty at Rs. 28,200.36. As a result the appellant did not pay a sum of Rs. 47,001.14 by way of Central Excise Duty and the appellant had contravened provisions of Rule 9 read with Rule 52 of the Central Excise Rules. The Ld. Assistant Collector had added 0.2 paise in the assessable value of the goods and had charged Central Excise duty and had created a demand of Rs. 47,001.14. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant had filed an appeal to the Appellate Collector. The Ld. Appellate Collector of Central Excise had observed that collection of 2 paise per kg. for charity will go to add the already approved assessable value of Rs. 10/- per kg. for the period in question and had confirmed differential duty demand and had rejected the appeal. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.

3. Shri M.N. Krishnamani, Ld. Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the facts and has referred to the show cause notice, the order in original and order in appeal. He has pleaded that the order passed by the Assistant Collector and confirmed by the Appellate Collector is not correct in law. He states that Dharmada receipts are charity receipts and the appellant has got no right to the same. He further states that in the show cause notice there is no allegation against the appellant that there was suppression of facts on the part of the appellant and as such the extended period of limitation was not applicable. He states that during the period in question the limitation was three months. He states that there was no fraud on the part of the appellant; and there was no self-removal procedure; and clearances were made from the factory on the basis of physical control. He has further argued that Dharmada receipts cannot be a subject matter of tax. In support of his argument he has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax (Central), New Delhi v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. reported in MANU/SC/0308/1979 : [(1979) 116 ITR 60] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that Dharmada receipts are customary receipts and are exempt from tax. He has referred to a judgment of Government of India in the case of Premier Automobiles Limited reported in 1982 ELT 554 (G.O.L) where the Central Government has held that dealer's contribution to charge Rs. 10/- per car was neither a part of the manufacturing cost nor the m