9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er referred to as `the assessee') is a company manufacturing sheet glass in its factory at Iradatganj. The price lists filed by it under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ("the Act") were accepted by the Department all through from 1976 onwards. On 6-5-1981 the Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Allahabad issued a show cause notice to the assessee under Section 11A of the Act alleging that the clearances upto 30-6-1980 had suffered short levy of excise duty. We are not concerned here with the details of the basis for the issue of this show cause notice except to briefly mention that, according to the department, the assessee had evaded duty during the above period by showing in his price lists the prices at which the goods had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... posed order is given notice to show cause against it within the time limit specified in Section 11A. (4) No proceedings shall be commenced under this section in respect of any decision or order (whether such decision or order has been passed before or after the commencement of the Customs, Central Excises and Salt and Central Board of Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1978) after the expiration of a period of one year from the date of such decision or order." The High Court came to the conclusion that, having regard to the similarity of language between Section 11A and Section 35A(3)(b), the two periods of limitation applicable under Section 11A are equally applicable under Section 35A(3)(b) depending upon the nature of the allegations in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se - to express any opinion thereon. As pointed out by us, if sub-section (4) had not been there, the logical interpretation of sub-section (3)(b) would have been that the Collector could revise an order of a subordinate officer provided the show cause notice proposing such action is issued within a period of 6 months or 5 years of the order proposed to be revised, the later larger period being available in cases where the non-levy or short-levy of duty or the excess of refund is attributable to fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or misrepresentation of facts on the part of the assessee. 7. What, then, is the role of sub-section (4) which lays down another period of limitation, namely, that the notice proposing revision should be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven assuming that this interpretation is correct, the validity of the proceedings in this case, which have been initiated within the period of one year, cannot be successfully challenged. 8. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that leave should be granted in this SLP because "the above question of limitation has been decided in favour of the petitioner" by the High Court of Delhi and Bombay in Associated Cement Co. v. Union [1981 (8) E.L.T. 421], Corn Products (India) Ltd. v. Union [1984 (16) E.L.T. 77] and Mahindra Re-rolls v. Union [1988 (33) E.L.T. 684] apart from several decisions of the Tribunal. Reference has been made to some decisions of the Tribunal, Special Leave Petitions from some of which have been granted or dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
