2003 (3) TMI 98 - SC - Central Excise

Whether show cause notice dated March 6, 1998 issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, invoking proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is valid in law? Held that - The contention that the impugned notice be treated as valid in regard to shorter period of six months is devoid of merit. Once the notice is issued under the proviso for the larger period, it cannot be treated as notice under main Section 11A for shorter period of six months. To enable this Court to ascertain the content of the impugned notice issued to find out whether it is severable as contended by the learned Counsel, time was granted to the Revenue to produce a copy thereof. In spite of the fact that a period of about eleven months has elapsed from the last date of hearing, a copy of the notice has not been produced. A perusal of the order of the Collector shows that he recorded the finding of suppression of fact. Even for shorter period notice based on the grounds contained in the proviso could be issued only by the Collector, therefore, the contention to treat the show cause notice for shorter period of six months cannot be accepted. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of show cause notice under proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, questioning the validity of a show cause notice dated March 6, 1998 issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondent-assessee, a manufacturer of copper goods, had cleared certain goods without paying excise duty, leading to the issuance of the notice. The Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, had upheld the validity of the notice, partly upheld the duty demand, confiscated seized goods, and imposed a penalty. However, the Tribunal later held the show cause notice to be invalid, leading to the current appeals.

The main contention raised was whether the notice issued by the Deputy Collector under the proviso for an extended period was valid, considering that such a notice should have been issued by the Collector of Central Excise. The Supreme Court held that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice under the proviso, as only the Collector had the authority to do so. This view was supported by a previous judgment. The argument to treat the notice as valid for a shorter period of six months was rejected, as once a notice is issued under the proviso for a larger period, it cannot be considered valid for a shorter period under the main Section 11A. The Court emphasized that even for a shorter period notice based on the grounds in the proviso, only the Collector could issue it.

Additionally, the Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs clarified the authority competent to issue notices in cases involving fraud, collusion, or misstatement of facts. The Circular highlighted that the Collector of Central Excise was the competent authority to issue such notices, regardless of the period involved. The Court, therefore, dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's decision and emphasizing the importance of jurisdiction and proper issuance of notices under the relevant provisions of the Act.