9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appellants manufactured unbranded biris without observing Central Excise formalities and removed them clandestinely. 2. Seizure of biris and initiation of proceedings to recover duties and impose penalties. 3. Appeal against orders passed by Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna. 4. Show cause notices issued beyond the limitation period. 5. Jurisdiction of Additional Collector in issuing show cause notices. 6. Allegations of fresh show cause notices and connection to remand orders. 7. Applicability of res judicata principles in subsequent proceedings. Analysis: The judgment involves two appeals against orders passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Patna. In Appeal E-194/92, the appellant was accused of manufacturing and removing unbranded biris without following Central Excise formalities. The department alleged clandestine removal of 1,67,42,450 biris and seized 2,26,000 biris. The Adjudicating Officer confirmed duty demand and penalty. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the penal action but set aside the removal allegations, remanding the matter. Subsequently, a fresh show cause notice was issued, leading to the impugned order. Similarly, in Appeal E-195/92, the appellant faced similar accusations for removing 99,03,000 biris clandestinely, resulting in duty demand and penalty imposition. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the matter, and a fresh show cause notice was issued, culminating in the impugned order demanding duty on 23,74,000 biris. The central issue revolved around the timeliness of the show cause notices issued by the Additional Collector. The advocate for the appellants argued that the notices were beyond the five-year limitation period, rendering the demands time-barred. The contention was supported by legal precedents emphasizing the necessity of specifying duty amounts in show cause notices and the jurisdictional limitations on Additional Collectors in issuing such notices. The department, represented by the J.D.R., argued that the notices were not fresh but part of ongoing adjudication cases, commencing from the remand order date. However, the absence of explicit references to the remand order in the notices led to the conclusion that they were indeed fresh notices, as per legal interpretations. The Tribunal concurred with the appellants, ruling that the show cause notices were indeed fresh and not in compliance with the remand order, thereby exceeding the limitation period. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal held that the demands were time-barred, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders. The judgment focused solely on the limitation aspect, refraining from delving into the case merits. The possibility of the department pursuing proceedings in line with the remand order was acknowledged, but the Tribunal did not opine on the applicability of res judicata principles in potential future proceedings, as the current decision was based solely on the limitation issue.
|
