9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (5) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i K.C. Sachar, Departmental Representative, in opposition thereto. 3. The first mistake which is said to be apparent from the record is in the opening sentence of para. 8 of the order, wherein it is stated that under notice dated 19-6-1986, the Collector raised a demand . It is submitted that the said notice does not disclose any demand of duty but was only a show cause notice. On a consideration of the submissions before us and on perusal of the record, we find that the penultimate paragraph of the notice dated 19-6-1986 in terms calls upon Indian Granite Limited to show cause why an aggregate amount of Rs. 16,15,805.40 towards basic excise duty should not be paid by the appellants. This certainly amounts to giving a notice of demand or ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a period of six months before the date of issue of the show cause notice. In the present case the Collector's show cause notice dated 19-6-1986 had, in the view of the Tribunal, to be read with the notices issued by the Assistant Collector on 4-9-1984, 23-11-1984, 26-4-1985 and 3-10-1985. Though the Assistant Collector had issued the four notices referred to above, the Collector took upon himself the adjudication pursuant to the show cause notices since, by then, the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act had been amended so as to require the Collector to adjudicate matters wherein the longer period of limitation of five years was proposed to be invoked. This change in the Act was brought about with effect from 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to that notice were not maintainable. 7. We have considered this submission. The 4 notices issued by the Assistant Collector and the Superintendent were under Section 11A of the Act. Copies of the 2 notices issued by the Assistant Collector are on record and they have invoked Section 11A. Copies of the 2 notices issued by the Superintendent are not on record but it is mentioned in the present application that they were also under Section 11A. We have, in our order, held that, for the reasons stated therein, the Revenue could demand duty in respect of each of these notices for a period of 6 months prior to the dates of their issue. This cannot be, however, said to be true of the notice issued by the Collector who has invoked Rule 9(2). The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , hold that the Collector's notice of demand (relating to this period September 1985 to March 1986) could not be supported as arising under that notice. 9. This, however, would not mean that the demands raised by the 4 earlier notices, which were also the subject of the adjudication by the Collector, could not be sustained in so far as they seek to recover duty in respect of a period of 6 months prior to the dates of each of those notices. To the extent mentioned supra there is a mistake in our order which needs to be rectified. It is, therefore, directed that following amendment shall be made: (a) In paragraph 30 of the order, the last sentence be deleted and substituted by the following sentence - In view of the earlier discussion, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice to show cause why the amount specified therein should not be demanded from them. It is in this sense that the quoted words should be read and understood. 12. It is also contended that the finding that the appellants had not attended the hearing relating to the notice dated 23-11-1984 is not correct. The para of the order with reference to which this objection has been raised has not been spelt but it appears to be para 7. Our attention has been drawn to para. 12 the document at serial No. 10 (p. 31-35) of the Paper Book, titled Summary of submissions made during personal hearing on 21-1-1985 before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Nellore . Para. 12 reads:-- In the show cause notice dated 4-9-1984 as well as in the show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the adjudicating Collector had stated that at no stage had the appellants made any statement about the process involved in converting granite blocks into granite slabs, cut and polished, and their argument was and continued to be that the Ministry of Commerce had listed granite, cut and polished, under handicrafts. Even so the Tribunal had held that the use of machinery could not have been unknown to the Department and that is why the demands for duty for the periods prior to six months before the dates of the respective notices had been found to be non-enforceable. 14. In the result this application is allowed in part and it is directed that the amendments as mentioned in para. 9 earlier should be made in the order dated 14-7-1987. 15. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
