Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Bhikhlal Dwarkadas on 22 December, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(99)ELT438(TRI-DEL)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. Vide show cause notice dated 30-6-1983 it was alleged that the respondents in this appeal were receiving scoured fabrics and were removing the same after bleaching without payment of duty. Duty amounting to Rs. 1,17409.58 was demanded under the Notice. The Assistant Commissioner in his order held that the assessee had filed declaration which were verified by the department. The Assistant Commissioner observed that even if the process undertaken by the assessee that is of keiring was equated with bleaching then also the assessee could claim the benefit of Notification No. 130/82. On his dropping the proceedings the jurisdictional Commissioner caused an application be filed before the Collector (Appeals) in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order observed that the assessees' claim for benefit of the notification was already verified by the department, that the show cause notice did not give any details as to from who the assessee had received the scoured fabrics and also as to what processes the assessee was undertaking on the fabric so as to render him ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 132/82 as amended. He upheld the lower order. The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against this order of the Collector.
2. Shri Sangia, learned JDR reiterating the submissions made in the appeal memorandum claimed that the assessees were engaged in kiering operations, which amounted to bleaching of the fabrics in terms of Ministry's letter F. No. 357/4/82-TRU, dated 19-6-1982. On this count he urged that the assessee did not qualify for the benefit of the notification. The respondents were not present although due notice was given to them.
3. We have carefully considered the impugned order and the submissions made before us. The Collector upheld the order of the Asistant Collector on the observation that the show cause notice did not substantiate the allegation made therein. The arguments as to whether kiering operation amounted to bleaching or not, would not correct that situation. A show cause notice has to state clearly the allegations made against the noticee. Where the allegations are absent or not substantiated, that defect cannot be cured at subsequent stages and certainly not at the stage of the second appeal. On this observation we dismiss this appeal from the Revenue.