Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
H. Guru Instruments (North India) Pvt. ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 20 June, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(19)ECR357(TRI.-DELHI), 1989(40)ELT180(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G. Sankaran, Sr. Vice-President
1. We have heard Shri M.D. Chowdhary, Advocate, for the appellants' and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the department.
2. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case and the ramifications of the dispute in any detail for the disposal of this appeal in the view we propose to take.
3. The notice to the appellants calling upon them to show cause why duty should not be demanded from them was issued by the Deputy Collector on 21-1-1986, the period for which duty was proposed to be demanded being 1-10-1983 to 25-7-1985. Cause was required to be shown to the Collector. On 27-12-1985, Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act had been brought into force in terms of which in a case where the Revenue proposed to invoke the extended period of 5 years for demand of duty from a manufacturer alleging suppression, wilful mis-statement of facts etc. on the part of the manufacturer, the notice to show cause should be issued by the Collector. As held by the Tribunal in Mysore Prefabs and Prefabs India v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, [1987 (27) ELT 487] and Gujarat High Court in Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., [1988 (34) ELT 442] a show cause notice issued in such circumstances by an officer other than the Collector would not be legal and proceedings in pursuance of such a notice would also be not legally tenable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.