LexCOLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR versus ALCOBEX METALS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JAIPUR A J v ALCOBEX METALS MARCH 12, 2003 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] B Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 S. 11 A(J), Proviso-Show cause notice-Authority competent to issue c Show cause notice issued by Deputy Collector Central Excise invoking proviso to s. 11-A(J) for extended period-Assessee challenging the notice as invalid- Held, Proviso to s. 11-A(J) postulates satisfaction of the Collector on the question of fi'aud, collusion, or wilful mis-statement or .suppression of fact or contravention of the Act and the Rules made thereunde; for invoking a larger period of jive years-During the relevant period such a notice could have D been issued only by the Collector, Central Excise-Notice issued by Deputy Collector is wholly without jurisdiction-Even for shorter period notice based on the grounds contained in the proviso could be issued only by the Collector- Contention to treat the show cause notice for shorter period of six months cannot be accepted-Central Board of Excise and Customs, Circular No.81 87-CX-l dated July 21,1987-Notice-lssuing authority. E Collector a/Central Excise v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, (1998) 103 E.L.T. 3, relied on. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi v. M/s.Frick1ndia Limited, 12003] 4 sec 634, followed . F .., CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4230-4231 of 1996 . .....-- From the Judgment and Order dated 25.3.1991 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. E/2488/89-NRB G I' in F.O. No. Misc/59/90-NRB and A/182/91-NRB. T.L.V. Iyer, Sanjiv Sen and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. A.R. Madhav Rao, Aiok Yadav and V. Balachandran for the Respondent. - 1057 H I 058 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R. A The following Order of the Court was delivered : SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI. J. The short point that arises in these appeals by the Revenue, against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control ) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is whether show cause notice dated March 6, 1998 issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, B Jaipur, invoking proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is valid in law? The respondent-assessee manufacturers goods of copper and copper alloys. Shells and blanks manufactured by it were cleared wi'.hout payment C of excise duty and were captively consumed as in manufacture of pipes and tubes during the period March l, 1981 to December 5, 1985. The Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, issued notice to the. assessee on March 6, 1986 invoking the proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, 'the Act') to show cause why duty amounting to Rs. 11,83, 19476.94 leviable on shells and blanks for the period between March I, 1981 to D December 5, 1985 should not be recovered, seized goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. In reply, the assessee, inter alia, challenged the validity of the notice to show cause issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur. By his order dated April 12, 1989, the Collector, Central Excise Jaipur, upheld the validity of the said notice, partly upheld the demand of duty, ordered confiscation of seized goods and imposed E a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs. The order of the Collector upholding the validity of the said show-cause notice dated March 6, 1986 was assailed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, 'the Tribunal'). On March 25, 1991, the Tribunal, by majority, held the show cause notice to be invalid. It is from that order of the Tribunal that the F present appeals have arisen. G Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant- Revenue, c·~ntends that even ifthe notice is held to be invalid for the extended period under the proviso, it has to be treated as valid for the shorter period of six months. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, it will be useful to read Section 11-A of the Act, as it stood at the material date, insofar as it is relevant he.re : "l l-A Recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or H short-paid or erroneously refunded - "When any duty of excise has [ .. . - C.C.E. v. ALCOBEX METALS 1059 not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid or A erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may, within six months from the relevant date serve no
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.