1973 (11) TMI 83 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice of demand under Produce Cess Act 1966 without proper assessment and notice as per Rule 5.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a partner in a business, sought to quash a notice of demand under the Produce Cess Act 1966 for payment of a specified amount. The Act imposes a duty of excise on certain produce, including oils extracted from oil-seeds. The Act requires every occupier of a mill to furnish monthly returns on the produce consumed or extracted. Failure to furnish a return or furnishing a defective return allows the Collector to assess the amount payable. The Act also provides for appeal against assessments within three months. The Produce Cess Rules 1969 prescribe the content of the notice of demand, including details of the produce consumed, cess assessed, amount paid, and amount due.

The petitioner contended that the demand notice was issued without proper assessment, hindering the right to appeal as per Section 10 of the Act. The Court noted that the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act, as per Rule 5, should contain specific details for the petitioner to challenge its correctness through an appeal. As the notice did not comply with Rule 5 by not providing the necessary particulars, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the demand notice. The judgment clarified that the first respondent could proceed afresh in compliance with the law. The decision emphasized the importance of following procedural requirements in issuing demand notices under the Act to safeguard the rights of the parties involved.