9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (6) TMI 331X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at after the amendment in Rules 9 and 49 by Notification No. 20/82-C.E., dated 20-2-1982, there was no bar for demanding duty beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty involved in these proceedings amounts to Rs. 11,790.60. 2. We have heard Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate for the appellants and Shri D.K. Nayar, DR, who appeared for the respondents/Revenue. There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. The appellants were engaged, among other commodities, in the manufacture of the bagasse, which became excisable and dutiable with effect from 1-3-1975 on introduction of Item No. 68 in the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. The new levy came into effect from 1-3-1975. On 30-4- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been given by the adjudicating authority in his order. The show cause notice was issued on 26-9-1983 demanding central excise duty of Rs. 11,790.60 for the period 1-3-1975 to 29-3-1975. We find that the show cause notice had been issued even after 8 years of the period in dispute. We consider that it is not permissible under law. The law has been laid-down by the Supreme Court while holding that the amended provisions of Rules 9 and 49 were not arbitrary, unreasonable and were not violative of the provisions of Article 14 and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and will cover the facts of this case. Paras 31, 32 and 33 from the judgment are extracted below :- 31. Under Section 11A(1) the Excise authorities cannot recover du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the date of the amendment. 33. There is no provision in the Act or in the Rules enabling the Excise authorities to make any demand beyond the periods mentioned in Section 11A of the Act on the ground of the accrual of cause of action. The question that is really involved is whether in view of Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982, Section 11A should be ignored or not. In our view Section 51 does not, in any manner, affect the provision of Section 11A of the Act. In the absence of any specific provision overriding Section 11A, it will be consistent with rules of harmonious construction to hold that Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 insofar as it gives retrospective effect to the amendments made to Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules, is subject ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
