9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Validity of notices under Central Excise Rules - Rule 10 vs. Rule 10A.
Analysis: The Supreme Court heard an appeal challenging the judgment of the High Court regarding the legality and validity of two notices issued under the Central Excise Rules. The notices demanded payment of specific amounts for certain periods, and the appellants argued that the notices were beyond the prescribed period of limitation under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. On the other hand, the Union of India contended that Rule 10A would apply to the case. The High Court determined that Rule 10A was applicable, rejecting the appellants' argument regarding the limitation period. As a result, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The appellants' counsel argued that the issuance of gate passes under Rule 52A implied compliance with Rule 52, indicating that assessment had been completed, thus making Rule 10 applicable instead of Rule 10A. It was emphasized that gate passes for excisable goods could only be issued post-assessment and payment of duty, suggesting that the existence of valid gate passes indicated completed assessment. However, the Supreme Court refrained from expressing a definitive opinion on this matter, stating that it should be referred back to the authorities under the Central Excise Act for further examination. The burden was placed on the appellants to prove that duty assessment had been conducted, and the mere existence of gate passes was not sufficient to establish this fact conclusively. The Supreme Court acknowledged that while the High Court ruled in favor of Rule 10A based on the evidence presented, the question of whether the notices were time-barred under Rule 10 remained open for consideration by the statutory authorities. The Court emphasized that the appellants could raise this contention before the authorities, indicating that the issue was not conclusively decided by the dismissal of the appeal. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, with the reservation that the question of limitation could be pursued before the statutory authorities.
|
