Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Reine Chemicals vs Collector Of Central Excise on 30 June, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1994(52)ECR467(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. Being aggrieved with the demand of duty and imposition of penalty by the Collector Central Excise and Customs, Baroda, the appellants have filed their present appeal.
2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants Shri B.V. Doshi, learned Consultant submitted that in the instant case a show cause notice dated 25.2.1987 demanding duty for the period 1983-84,1984-85, and 1985-86 was issued by the Superintendent, Law Branch, Central Excise and Customs, Head Quarters., Baroda invoking the larger period under proviso to Section 11-A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The notice, according to him, was not valid notice as such notice ought to have been issued by the Collector as held by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1988 (34) ELT 442 : 1989 (20) ECR 264 (Gujarat) and by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. v. CCE . Referring to the latest Judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Baroda v. Safari Industries on 1st February, 1993 see 1993 (45) ECR 31J (SC), he submitted that since in the instant case entire period involved was beyond the period of 6 months there remains nothing to be adjudicated upon by the Supdt. for 6 months preceding to the issuance of the show cause notice. In view of this he did not argue on merits of the case. In reply Shri Bansali, learned SDR submitted that the demand raised may be without authority but imposition of penalty can be sustained.
3. We have considered the submissions. It is settled law that after the amendment in Section 11-A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, show cause notice demanding duty invoking the extended period of 5 years has to be issued by the Collector, though the Supdt. can adjudicate for a period of 6 months preceding the issuance of the show cause notice in view of the recent Judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s Safari Industries Ltd. (supra). Since in the instant case the entire demand raised was beyond 6 months we agree with the learned Consultant that the notice was invalid. In the case of, Alcobex Metals (P) Ltd. v. CCE (supra) it was also held that in such a situation show cause notice cannot be held valid even for the purpose of imposition of penalty. Thus, following the ratio of the Judgment of the Apex Court,...supra, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open Court).