9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod from November, 1983 to July, 1988, had, in contravention of the provisions of the Central Excise Rules, removed clandestinely 1,37,016 kgs. of woollen worsted yarn of composition 70% wool and 30% nylon without payment of Central Excise Duty and without issuing Central Excise gate passes and thus evaded payment of Central Excise duty amounting to about Rs. 30 lacs. 3.The assessee filed replies to the show cause notice on 11-4-1989 and 28-4-1989. It, however, received what has been described as an "addendum" to the show cause notice on 7th March, 1990 setting out some further material that had come to the notice of the Collector. Thereupon, the assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. This writ petition h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to make the supplies to the DGS & D. The notice, however, pointed out that the yarn alleged to have been purchased did not conform to the specification given in the approved tenders. It was also pointed out that the assessee had not obtained permission under Rule 51A to bring into its premises the duty paid goods which, it alleged, had been purchased from the various parties. It was also observed that the scrutiny of the files with the DGS & D showed that the files contained two invoices - one hand written and the other typed one bearing the same number. The typed one contained a description of the goods in conformity with the specifications of the authorities but the written matter did not tally with the office bills issued from the godo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the High Court erred in quashing the show cause notice as barred by limitation. We may also point out that the purported liberty given to the Department to issue fresh notices "by disclosing how the impugned show cause notice" is within the period of limitation is without meaning and ineffective insofar as a major portion of the period covered is concerned. 7.Shri Madhava Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that in this case certain other objections had also been taken by the assessee before the High Court and these have not been dealt with by the High Court as it allowed the writ petition on the point of limitation. We have heard learned Counsel on these points but we find no reason to uphold the order of the High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ars. This is no doubt true but the effect of this will not be to invalidate the notice in its entirety. At worst, the effect will be that the Department will not be entitled to collect the duty beyond a period of five years from the date of issue of the Section 11A notice. It will be open to the assessee to raise this plea in the course of the proceedings following on the issue of the show cause notice. 10.The third contention raised by Shri Madhava Reddy is that the Department could not supplement its case by the material referred to in the notice dated 7-3-1990 which is admittedly beyond a period of five years in respect of a substantial period covered by the earlier notice. We see no substance in this allegation. The proceedings under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
