1988 (5) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Mistake in stating demand in the notice dated 19-6-1986.
2. Failure to address the denial of applicability of Rule 9(2) in the order.
3. Procedure followed by the Collector in adjudication.
4. Invocation of Rule 9(2) in the notice by the Collector.
5. Enforcement of demands raised by earlier notices.
6. Alleged factual errors in the order.
7. Consideration of the use of machinery by the Collector (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised was regarding the mistake in stating a demand in the notice dated 19-6-1986. The Tribunal found that the notice did call upon the appellant to show cause why an amount towards basic excise duty should not be paid, constituting a demand, which did not require rectification.

2. The second issue involved the failure to address the denial of Rule 9(2) applicability in the order. The Tribunal noted that while the order did not explicitly address this point, it found that the demands for duty were enforceable only for a limited period, based on the revised classification and the dates of the show cause notices.

3. The third issue focused on the procedure followed by the Collector in adjudication. The Tribunal examined the change in the law requiring the Collector to adjudicate matters invoking a longer period of limitation, and found no irregularity in the procedure followed by the Collector.

4. The fourth issue pertained to the invocation of Rule 9(2) in the notice by the Collector. The Tribunal held that Rule 9(2) was invoked to take advantage of the extended period, but since there was no infraction of Rule 9(1), the demand under Rule 9(2) was not maintainable.

5. The fifth issue addressed the enforcement of demands raised by earlier notices. The Tribunal clarified that demands from earlier notices could be enforced for a period of 6 months prior to the dates of those notices, and directed amendments to the order to reflect this.

6. The sixth issue involved alleged factual errors in the order, which the Tribunal examined and found no substance in the contentions raised, maintaining the accuracy of the findings in the order.

7. The final issue concerned the consideration of the use of machinery by the Collector (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld its finding that the Collector did not appear to have considered the use of machinery, and that the demands for duty were found non-enforceable for certain periods due to this factor.

In conclusion, the application was partially allowed, with specific amendments directed to be made in the order, while dismissing other aspects of the petition.