1989 (7) TMI 101

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nst the interim order passed on 19th July 1988 in the respondents' writ petition. The learned single judge, upon a prima facie interpretation of Section 11A (3)(ii)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, entertained doubts as to whether the Collector could have issued the show cause notice that is impugned in the petition. Accordingly, he restrained further proceedings there from. 2. Mr. Sethna, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e "from the relevant date". That the relevant date has come and gone is, therefore, a sine qua non of the valid exercise of the power conferred by sub-section 1. The definition of 'relevant date' appropriate to the present case is contained in sub-section (3)(ii)(b) of Section 11A. Where, as here, excise duty has been provisionally assessed, it is the date of adjustment of duty after final assessm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd that some assessments had been finalised. There is no affidavit filed by the respondents. There is, therefore, no material upon which we can presently decide this. 6. Mr. Sethna submitted that the appellants should be allowed to proceed with the hearing on the show cause notice and appropriate safeguards may be given. Having regard to our doubts about the validity of the show cause notice, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X