Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (1) TMI 261

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he preliminary point and reserved orders thereon. The following order recorded by the Bench disposes of the preliminary point of the appellants. The facts, insofar as they are material for disposal of the preliminary point, are that during the course of a survey of the Industrial Estate, in which the appellant unit is located, Central Excise Officers noticed that the appellants were engaged in manufacture of forged brass shapes and Sections [falling under Item 26A (3) (ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff] without a Central Excise Licence and that they had been removing the said articles without payment of Central Excise duty and without following the statutory Central .Excise requirements. After investigations, the authorities serv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d a fresh hearing on 25-9-1986. On adjudication, he held the appellants guilty and demanded duty of Rs. 1,72,017.16 but refrained from imposing any penalty. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the subject appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The preliminary submission of the appellants is that the proceedings before the Collector were without jurisdiction and that three show cause notices were null and void for the following reasons : (1) Amendment of Section 11A, which came into effect on 27-12-1985, authorised transfer of only those proceedings which were pending before the Asstt. Collector; since the proceedings in this case were pending before the Additional Collector, their transfer to the Collector was without jurisdiction. (2) The amend .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ty under Section 11A as such. They were, in fact, notices dealing with the alleged clandestine manufacture and removal of the goods and were issued under the penal provisions of Rules 9(2) and 173 Q. 6. Thirdly, while under Section 11A the demand for duty for a period beyond six months had to be issued and adjudicated by the Collector, under Rule 9(2) the demand could be made by the proper officer . Under Rule 173 Q (2), confiscation and penalty could be adjudged by the officer adjudging the case under Section 33 of the Act . It is nobody s case here that the Collector and Additional Collector were not proper officers under Rule 9(2) or that they were not appointed as Adjudicating Officers under Section 33. In fact, under Rule 2(ii), C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ever, even if it be assumed that if the extended time limit was applied, the other attendant requirements of Section 11A had also to be fulfilled, still we find no merit in the preliminary objections taken by the appellants. In the succeeding paragraphs we shall deal with each of their objections itemwise. 9. The first objection of the appellants is not - as to why the notices, as originally issued, asked the appellants to show cause to the Additional Collector instead of to the Assistant Collector, as required by Section 11A(2); their objection is as to why the adjudication proceedings were tranferred from the Additional Collector to the Collector when Section 8 of the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1985 (79 of 1985) required .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ld be issued by a Central Excise Officer . The first two notices dated 8-10-1985 and 21-11-1985 issued by the Superintendent, who was a Central Excise Officer, were, therefore, valid. The amendment of 27-12-1985 did not require that notices already issued validly by an authority lower than the Collector should be replaced by fresh notices to be issued by the Collector. The third show cause notice dated 20-3-1986 issued by the Superintendent, though issued after 27-12-1985, did not cover the period beyond the normal time limit of six months and hence this notice was not affected by the amendment of 27-12-1985. The other requirement of the amendment of 27-12-1985 was that the cases demanding duty for over six months should be adjudicated upo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates