2005 (3) TMI 639 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether an Additional Collector of Central Excise can issue a show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act in the year 1988.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Argument by Appellant's Advocate:
The Appellant's Advocate argued that only the Collector of Central Excise was authorized to issue a show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation during the relevant period. Citing a Supreme Court case, CCE, Indore v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, it was emphasized that the show cause notice must be issued by the Collector of Central Excise.

2. Counter-argument by Senior Departmental Representative:
The Senior Departmental Representative contended that as per Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the term "Collector" includes Additional Collector, giving the Additional Collector the competence to issue a show cause notice invoking the extended period of limitation. Referring to Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000, it was argued that any notice issued under Section 11A during a specified period is deemed valid for demanding duty.

3. Rebuttal by Appellant's Advocate:
The Appellant's Advocate argued that the definition of "Collector" was not provided in the Central Excise Act during the relevant time and that the term's definition in the Rules was not applicable to the Act. The Advocate also highlighted that the provisions of Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not apply to the present case as they were not related to the suppression of value issue raised in the show cause notice.

4. Judgment by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and held that the show cause notice for the extended period of limitation should have been issued only by the Collector of Central Excise, not by the Additional Collector. The Tribunal emphasized that the term "Collector" in the Central Excise Act did not include the Additional Collector. Referring to relevant case laws, including Virgo Steels and Madhumillan Syntex Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the issue of a notice under Section 11A(1) was a prerequisite before levying any duty, and as the notice was issued by an unauthorized officer, it lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the Appeal.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal based on established legal principles and precedents.