9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (12) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the years 1976 and 1979 as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. At Item 3 dyed tissue paper was shown to be nil. Similar is the position in 1979. The petitioner has averred that the same situation prevailed in the intervening and other years. On the 8th of August, 1980, the petitioner received a notice purporting to be under Rule 10(a) of the Rules. The notice directed the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be required to pay excise duty on coloured tissue paper for the period from August, 1976 to June, 1980. The petitioner in response to the notice, sent a detailed reply on the 16th August, 1980. It transpires that a letter concerning the same matter was sent to the petitioner by the Department on the 1st of September, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Rule 10 of the Rules. The amending Act which brought section 11A on the statute book did not contain any provision to the effect that proceedings pending under Rule 10 on the date whom the aforesaid provision came into effect would be treated as proceedings under the section. The question arises as to whether proceedings pursuant to the notice dated 8th of August, 1980, issued under Rule 10 can be continued after the omission of these rules with effect from the 17th of November, 1980, and also as to whether the notice of the 8th August, 1980 lapsed with the omission of the Rule. We were, at one stage of the view that the proceedings could contintie, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Rayala Corporation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1980. Under Rule 10(2) as it stood, the liability for excise duty after a show cause notice had been sent, arose only after objections to the show cause notice had been considered after affording the persons concerned a reasonable opportunity. This being so, the order of the 6th October, 1980 passed by the Deputy Collector (Audit) Central Excise, Kanpur, cannot be taken to be an order passed in proceedings taken in pursuance of the notice dated 8th of August, 1980. It was also pointed out to us that the order of the 6th October, 1980 (Annexure 5 to the counter-affidavit) is not an order addressed to the petitioner but is a communication sent to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Agra. There appears to be force in this contention for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
