1991 (7) TMI 200 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed by the Supdt.
2. Enforcement of duty payment without issuance of show cause notice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Asstt. Collector in the appeal process.
4. Applicability of Section 11A for recovery of short levy or non-levy.
5. Interpretation of quasi-judicial orders and appealable orders.
6. Adherence to procedural requirements under Rule 173-I and Section 11A.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenges the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) based on an assessment by the Supdt. directing the appellant to pay a specific duty amount without issuing a show cause notice. The appellant contested the duty amount but was directed to pay by the Asstt. Collector, leading to the present appeal against the Collector (Appeals) decision.

2. The appellant argued that the duty demand endorsed on the RT 12 Returns without a show cause notice is unenforceable, citing legal precedents. They emphasized that Section 11A is the prescribed method for recovery of short levy or non-levy, and the endorsement cannot bypass this statutory requirement.

3. The Respondent contended that the assessment under Rule 173-I is quasi-judicial and appealable, suggesting the appellant could have appealed to the Collector (Appeals) to challenge the assessment order. The failure to pursue this remedy renders the order enforceable, even if flawed, until set aside by the proper authority.

4. The Tribunal considered the legal arguments and precedent cited by both parties. It was established that the duty demand made through a short endorsement on the RT 12 Returns did not comply with the requirements of Section 11A. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper adjudication and issuance of a notice under Section 11A for enforceable recovery.

5. The Tribunal disagreed with the Asstt. Collector's decision on jurisdiction and emphasized that the issue at hand required a detailed adjudication process through a show cause notice. The Tribunal held that the demand for duty must adhere to the statutory procedure outlined in Section 11A for enforceability.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the duty demand lacked enforceability due to non-compliance with Section 11A requirements. The decision emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures for determining duty amounts and enforcing recovery under the Central Excise Act and Rules.