1987 (10) TMI 59 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vagueness of Show Cause Notices
2. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules
3. Validity of Rule 9(2) under the Central Excises and Salt Act
4. Delay and Laches in Issuance of Show Cause Notices
5. Pendency of Related Suit and Its Impact on Show Cause Notices

Summary of Judgment:

1. Vagueness of Show Cause Notices:
The appellants contended that the two show cause notices were vague and should be struck down. The court found this argument meritless, noting that the annexures to the notices clearly specified the period, category, width, square meters, basic duty, additional duty, and handloom cess payable. The court emphasized that the notices were in continuation of earlier notices struck down for violating principles of natural justice, and the appellants were fully aware of the allegations and had inspected the documents.

2. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules:
The appellants argued that Rule 9(2) was not applicable as Rule 9(1) was not contravened. The court rejected this argument, stating that the Co-operative Society was a creation of Prakash Cotton Mills to avoid duty, and the goods were removed from places not specified by the Collector. The court held that the provisions of Rule 9(2) were indeed attracted.

3. Validity of Rule 9(2) under the Central Excises and Salt Act:
The appellants claimed that Rule 9(2) was ultra vires as it conferred powers not provided by the Act. The court dismissed this argument, citing Section 37 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which empowers the Central Government to make rules for the assessment and collection of duties, including the recovery of unpaid duties. The court found Rule 9(2) to be within the statutory powers conferred by Section 37.

4. Delay and Laches in Issuance of Show Cause Notices:
The appellants argued that the show cause notices were issued after considerable delay and should be dismissed due to laches. The court found this argument unconvincing, noting that the initial notices were issued promptly after realizing the duty evasion, and the fresh notices were issued immediately after the Supreme Court appeal was withdrawn in 1975. The court also noted that Rule 9(2) does not prescribe any limitation period for recovering duty.

5. Pendency of Related Suit and Its Impact on Show Cause Notices:
The appellants contended that the pendency of a related suit filed by the Co-operative Society should bar the issuance of show cause notices. The court rejected this argument, stating that the pendency of the suit does not prevent the Excise authorities from proceeding with the notices. The court also dismissed the argument that fresh notices were not maintainable because earlier notices were struck down, clarifying that the earlier notices were quashed on technical grounds, not on merits.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the court found no merit in the appellants' contentions. The court upheld the validity of the show cause notices and allowed the Excise authorities to proceed with their inquiry.