9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Superintendent of Central Excise, Kottayam issued a demand notice to the respondents herein demanding the duty of Rs. 15,487.89 for the period from 1-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. This was challenged in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, who by order dated 10-11-1986, remanded the matter in the following terms: This demand should have been issued (confirmed) after issue of show cause notice. Thus, the so-called order in the letter form of the Superintendent is set aside, without prejudice to the Assistant Collector s deciding the matter after issue of show cause notice and adherence to principles of natural justice. Subsequent to the remand, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice on 12-12- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present appeal is whether the demand of differential duty for the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 is time barred as held by the lower appellate authority under the impugned order or not. In respect of the differential duty for the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 the show cause notice has been issued for the first time on 12-12-1986 and the learned SDR does not dispute this factual position. I have carefully gone through the demand notice issued by the Superintendent on 18-8-1986 in order to consider whether the same could be construed to be a show cause notice under law. The learned SDR with characteristic fairness to a specific query from me, conceded that the demand notice of the Superintendent dated 18-8-1986 cannot be considered to be a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1986 to 24-3-1986 and this is clearly barred by limitation under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The first order of the lower appellate authority in directing the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to adhere to the principles of natural justice and issue a show cause notice is only without prejudice to the rights of the party and the lower appellate authority has never held that the first communication of the Superintendent of the Central Excise dated 18-8-1986 is a show cause notice. Therefore, on consideration of the entire materials on record, I am inclined to hold that the finding of the lower appellate authority under the impugned order that the demand is clearly barred by limitation is sustainable in law and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
