Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 145 - HC - Central ExciseRebate on Central Excise on excess production - demand notice barred by time limitation or not - only ground taken in the demand notice is that exemption from duty can not exceed the leviable duty itself. HELD THAT:- Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur [1996 (7) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT] has held that notice fails to refer to any of the acts of commission or omission enumerated in the relevant proviso to Rule 10, the notice, given more than six months after the date of the order of refund, is time-barred. Thus failure of the excise tax authority to lay out the grounds for extending the limitation period is a sufficient ground for quashing such demand notices and therefore further proceedings on the basis of such faulty notices are without jurisdiction. The judgment of the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. [1987 (11) TMI 85 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] also does not hold good in the light of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Raj Bahadur [1996 (7) TMI 146 - SUPREME COURT] Even otherwise counsel for the tax authority could not produce any final assessment before this Court. Further provisional assessment is provided under Rule 9B of the Rules of 1944. As per the same, instance of provisional assessment arises when (a) the assessee is unable to determine the value of excisable goods and (b) when the asessee is unable to determine the correct classification of the goods. Before approving the provisional assessment, the assessee is also asked to furnish a security bond. In the present case, learned counsel for the authorities could not show any such bond or order approving the provisional assessment - The demand cum show cause notice is issued under Rule 10, but there is no reference to any final assessment carried out by the authorities in support of its demand. In the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division vs. National Tobacco Co. India Ltd. [1972 (8) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT], a three judges bench of the Supreme Court has held that fullfilment of conditions provided in the Rule 9B of the Rules of 1944 is required to be followed for an assessment to be called as provisional assessment. The demand cum show cause notice dated 08.04.1980 is held to be time-barred and therefore impugned orders dated 26.08.1992, 08.01.1993 and 05.02.1999 passed on the basis of the said time-barred notice are hereby set aside - petition allowed.
|