9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (4) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sistant Collector, Central Excise, Kota holding that they had been issued no notice for recovery of duty on account of reversal of credit taken in their R.G. 23A Part I account within six months under Section 11A and hence the Assistant Collector was not the competent authority to adjudicate the case. He, therefore, set aside his order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication by the competent authority under Section 11A of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944, if considered warranted and necessary. 2. In the appeal it has been urged that the impugned order in appeal passed by the Collector (Appeals) is not based on the correct application of the facts of the case and is misconceived. It has been contended that the said order of the Coll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. We have taken note of the submissions. We have perused the record. The main thrust in the appeal is that at the material time Rule 57-I did not provide for any time limit for the issue of notice. In the present case, the show cause notice was in the form of letter dated 10-11-1989 and it has accordingly been argued that the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that no notice was issued for recovery of duty within six months under Section 11A and therefore the Assistant Collector was not the competent authority to adjudicate the case is totally incorrect. It is also pointed out that there is no reference to Section 11A in Rule 57-I. We have gone through the letter of Assistant Collector which has been referred to in the appeal and which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice, but there is nothing in that rule which excludes the applicability of the principles of natural justice. No cogent reason for making a departure from the fundamental rule of natural justice was forthcoming. The impugned order was, therefore, liable to be quashed on that ground with the directions that the proper officer would after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners to show cause pass a speaking order. Similarly, the Madras High Court held in Ennore Steel Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 363 as follows : Rule 57-I does not contemplate the issue of a show cause notice and an opportunity to the person likely to be affected by the adverse orders that may be passed under Rule 57-I, it is elementary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
