1983 (11) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Validity of show cause notice under Section 35A(3)(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Vagueness of show cause notice as per Rule 10 of Section 11A; Denial of natural justice by the Collector; Contrariness of impugned order to Trade Notice No. 128 (M.P. All Goods (NES)/75.

Analysis:

Validity of Show Cause Notice under Section 35A(3)(b):
The appellants contended that the show cause notice issued by the Collector was time-barred as it was issued after the expiry of six months from the date of the Assistant Collector's order. The Collector argued that Section 11A was not operative at the material time, and hence, the time limit under Section 35A(4) applied. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that Section 11A was on the statute book at the material time, and legislation by reference is permissible. The Tribunal held that Section 11A was in force for the purpose of Section 35A(3)(b) and the time limit therein was applicable to the case, rendering the show cause notice time-barred.

Vagueness of Show Cause Notice:
The appellants argued that the show cause notice was vague as no amount was mentioned, citing Rule 10 of Section 11A. They relied on case law to support their contention. However, the representative for the department contended that the show cause notice was not vague and provided all relevant particulars. The Tribunal noted that there was no allegation of suppression of facts or misstatement in the show cause notice, and in the absence of such an allegation, the extended time limit under Section 11A did not apply. The Tribunal held that the show cause notice was time-barred due to being issued after the six-month limit.

Denial of Natural Justice and Contrariness to Trade Notice:
The appellants also raised issues of denial of natural justice by the Collector and the contrariness of the impugned order to Trade Notice No. 128 (M.P. All Goods (NES)/75). However, the Tribunal did not delve into these grounds due to the success of the appeal based on the time-barred show cause notice issue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the ground of the time-barred show cause notice and did not address the other grounds raised by the appellants. The judgment highlights the importance of statutory provisions and the application of time limits in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for compliance with procedural requirements in administrative actions.