1992 (3) TMI 71 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of show cause notices under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of Section 11A(1) regarding the powers of the Collector of Central Excise in relation to short levy of excise duty.
3. Application of the proviso to Section 11A(1) in cases of non-levy or short levy of excise duty.
4. Jurisdiction and legality of the levy of excise duty on Television Chassis in light of Notification No. 373/86 C.E.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of show cause notices under Section 11A
The petitioner challenged the show cause notices issued under Section 11A of the Act, alleging that only the Collector of Central Excise had the authority to deal with matters related to short levy of excise duty due to suppression of facts or violation of the Act. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support this contention.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 11A(1)
The Central Government Standing Counsel argued that Section 11A(1) applies when excise duty has not been levied or has been short-levied, regardless of the reason, and that the proviso to this section is only relevant when an extended period of limitation is sought. The distinction between the normal period of six months and the extended period of five years was highlighted, emphasizing the need for specific conditions to be met for the proviso to apply.

Issue 3: Application of the proviso to Section 11A(1)
The court analyzed Section 11A and explained that the proviso extends the period of limitation and imposes conditions related to the state of mind of the assessee and the issuing authority. It clarified that the proviso is applicable only when the extended period of limitation is invoked, not for cases within the normal six-month period.

Issue 4: Jurisdiction and legality of excise duty levy on Television Chassis
The petitioner raised concerns about the jurisdiction and legality of levying excise duty on Television Chassis in light of a specific notification. The court advised the petitioner to file objections and exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the court, allowing the petitioner three months to do so.

In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, subject to the petitioner filing objections within three months. The authority was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.