1983 (11) TMI 68 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notice and subsequent proceedings.
2. Interpretation of Central Excise Rules and Notification for exemption.
3. Limitation period for levying excise duty.
4. Authority to issue show cause notice and demand for duty.
5. Alleged vagueness in the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioners, a partnership firm manufacturing aluminium strips, were required to submit classification lists under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules. A show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, questioning duty payment on cleared aluminium strips. The petitioners contended that subsequent proceedings by the Assistant Collector were improper as the original notice had concluded. However, the court held that the correction in the notice was valid, and the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to address the issue.

2. The petitioners claimed exemption from duty under a Notification, arguing that duty was already paid on the raw material, aluminium wire rods. The court rejected this argument, stating that the duty is leviable on the manufactured product, aluminium strips, irrespective of the duty paid on the raw material. The court upheld the authorities' decision that the petitioners were not entitled to the exemption claimed.

3. Regarding the limitation period for levying duty, the Assistant Collector's order was modified by the Appellate Collector, limiting the demand to a specific period. The petitioners challenged this modification, citing Rule 10 and Rule 173J of the Excise Rules. The court agreed with the authorities that the demand for the specified period was valid and not barred by limitation.

4. The petitioners also contested the authority of the Assistant Collector to issue demands based on the show cause notice. They argued that the original notice had concluded, and the subsequent corrigendum was baseless. However, the court held that the correction in the notice was necessary, and the Assistant Collector had the jurisdiction to address the matter.

5. Lastly, the petitioners raised a vague notice argument, claiming the contents of the show cause notice were unclear. The court dismissed this contention, stating that the petitioners had not raised this issue before and found no merit in the argument. The court ultimately dismissed the petition with costs, allowing the respondents to withdraw the deposited amount after a specified period.