TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 251X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Lighting bulbs and Fluorescent lighting tubes have filed this appeal against the OIO dated 26/28th September, 2001 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I Commissionerate, Bangalore. 2. It is seen that the OIO has been issued after a protracted legal battle. The show cause notices were issued on 21st July, 77 and 17th July, 79. The duty confirmed under erstwhile Rule 10A of Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the show cause notices issued have not quantified duty amounts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Metal Forgings v. UOI - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) has clearly held that the issuance of show cause notice in a particular format is a mandatory requirement of law and a notice must indicate the amount demanded. The above decision has been followed in the following decisions. (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he erstwhile Central Excise Rules. Rules 10 10A were in force till 6-8-1977, and a new Rule 10 was introduced. The new Rule 10 was in force till 17-11-1980. The Rule 10A was omitted with effect from 6-8-1977. It is well settled in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Royala Corporation v. Director of Enforcements, New Delhi [1969 (2) 412 SC] and also Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Ltd v. UOI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate. First of all two show cause notices have not quantified the amounts. Secondly, the approved price lists were not revised and the ratio of the Cotspun case is very relevant. Lastly the invocation of a Rule which is omitted and has not been saved by Section 38A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 has proved fatal to the cause of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
