1997 (4) TMI 74 - SC - Central Excise

Whether Sections 11A and 11B are similarly worded and the scheme of the two sections is the same? Held that - In the instant case, the High Court after quashing the provisional assessment, directed the assessments to be made afresh in accordance with the guidelines given by it. No question of giving any notice under Section 11A arises at this stage. The provisional assessment was quashed by the High Court and direction was given to recompute the value of the excisable goods. This could only be done in accordance with the substantive provisions of Section 4 and in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 173-I which at the material time stood. The scope of Section 11A and Rule 173-I are quite different. In this case, the provisional assessment earlier made by the proper officer has been quashed and pursuant to the direction of the High Court, the proper officer has made the final assessment. No question of failure of issuance of show cause notice under Section 11A arises in this case. Even otherwise, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. High Court intervention in revenue matters
2. Validity of show cause notices and orders issued by Central Excise authorities
3. Requirement of show cause notice under Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act
4. Interpretation of Sections 11A and 11B
5. Applicability of Rule 173-I in assessment procedures

Analysis:

1. The judgment highlights the issue of High Court intervention in revenue matters, emphasizing that the High Court should not interfere where alternative statutory remedies are available. The complications in this case arose due to directions issued by the Patna High Court, impacting proceedings under the Central Excise and Salt Act.

2. The case involves the validity of show cause notices and orders issued by Central Excise authorities to manufacturers of sheet glass regarding excise duty calculations. The challenge was raised through a writ petition in the High Court, leading to subsequent orders and directions from the Assistant Collector.

3. The issue of whether a show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act is mandatory before issuing demands for duty was raised. The appellants contended that the absence of such notice rendered the orders void. However, the Collector (Appeals) and the Tribunal disagreed with this contention.

4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of Sections 11A and 11B, drawing comparisons between the two and discussing the scheme of refund claims and tax realization. Various cases were cited to support arguments regarding provisional assessments and final assessments, along with the timelines for issuing notices.

5. The applicability of Rule 173-I in the assessment procedures was a crucial aspect of the judgment. It was emphasized that the proper officer's role in assessing duty after self-assessment by the assessee, along with the procedures for duty adjustment and payment, should be followed in accordance with the rules in place.

Overall, the judgment dismissed the appeals, concluding that the orders issued by the Central Excise authorities were valid and in line with the statutory provisions. The analysis covered various legal aspects, including the necessity of show cause notices, assessment procedures, and the role of different authorities in excise duty matters.