TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r main grounds :- (i) The Show Cause Notice was issued by the Collector on 7-6-1980 whereas the order sought to be reviewed therein was passed by the Assistant Collector on 21-7-1979. Therefore, the show cause notice was barred under Section 35A(3)(b); (ii) The show cause notice is vague as no amount was mentioned therein in accordance with Rule 10 of Section 11A. The show cause notice was invalid on this ground also in view of the case law in the matter of J.B.A. Printing Inks Ltd. v. Union of India others reported in 1980 E.L.T. 121 (Bom.); (iii) There was denial of natural justice by the Collector while passing the impugned order as he ignored the case law cited by the appellants; (iv) The impugned order is contrary to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 35A(3)(b). Further, the show cause notice was issued under Section 35A(2) seeking to review the order of the Assistant Collector and therefore the time limit was 12 months from the date of the said order as provided under Section 35A(4) and was therefore within time. He further submitted that proviso to Rule 10 allowing 5 years limit for issue of show cause notice to come into play. In this matter as the appellants failed to declare the value of raw materials thereby being guilty of mis-statement and suppression of facts. Regarding the charge that the show cause notice was vague the learned representative submitted that there was no such vagueness and the show cause notice gave all relevant particulars. He also cited an order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time barred. Admittedly the Assistant Collector passed the order on 21-7-1979 which was received by the appellants on 31-7-1979 and the show cause notice by the Collector was issued on 7-6-1980 and was received by the appellants on 9-6-1980. The Collector did consider the question of time bar but held that Section 11A though included in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was not operative at the material time and that unless Government gives effect to any such Act or amendment of an Act by issuing a notification to that effect the said section is inoperative for all purposes and cannot be acted upon. He therefore held that the time limit of 12 months prescribed in Section 35A(4) applies. 8. We have carefully examined this question. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons into the new Act as if they had been actually written in it with the pen or printed in it . These observations have been approved in a number of Supreme Court decisions. In Narottamdas v. State of M.P., - AIR 1964 S.C. 1667, the Supreme Court held : The result is to constitute the later Act along with the incorporated provisions of the earlier Act, an independent legislation which is not modified or repealed by a modification or repeal of the earlier Act From this it would follow that Section 11A having been incorporation in Section 35A(3)(b) has actually been written in the section with the pen or printed in it. This section became an independent legislation and for its coming into force it was not dependent on Section 11A itself hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
