9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iation of proceedings within one year is valid and answer that question in the affirmative. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 4. The short point which has been agitated before us is as to whether the notice dated 22-5-1982 issued by the Collector of Central Excise is barred by time under the provisions of Section 35A(3)(b) of the Act. This clause and sub-section (4), at the relevant date, read as under : "(b) Where the Board or, as the case may be, the Collector of Central Excise is of opinion that any duty of excise has not been levied or has been short-levied or erroneously refunded, no order levying or enhancing the duty, or no order requiring payment of the duty so refunded, shall be made under this section unless the person affected by the proposed order is given notice to show cause against it within the time limit specified in Section 11A. (4) No pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f limitation. Section 35A(3)(b) enables the Collector to give a notice within the time limits prescribed under Section 11A. Section 11A provides two periods of limitation : one of a period of 6 months and the other of a period of 5 years. The submission on the part of the assessee that this clause attracts only the shorter period of limitation prescribed in Section 11A and not the longer one is wholly untenable and the High Court was clearly right in rejecting the same. This is sufficient to dispose of the present case. 6. We shall, however, touch upon certain aspects mooted before us though it is unnecessary - and we do not propose - to express any opinion thereon. As pointed out by us, if sub-section (4) had not been there, the logical i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be to construe sub-section (4) as also covering the type of cases specified in sub-section (3)(b) but as imposing a further limitation or relaxation of the period of limitation specified therein. On this interpretation two questions would arise : one is whether the period of six months available under clause (b) would get extended to one year. This aspect is dealt with in some of the decisions referred to later but does not concern us. The other is whether, in cases where fraud etc. is alleged, the period of limitation would get cut down from five years to one year. It is not necessary for us to decide this question either since, even assuming that this interpretation is correct, the validity of the proceedings in this case, which have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r by resort to the provision corresponding to sub-section (4). It is not necessary here to consider whether those cases were rightly decided or not. The present case does not raise that problem. This case, on the other hand, is one which on the facts, falls within the purview of the extended period of limitation available under Section 11A. In such a case whether action could be taken upto a period of 5 years by virtue of Section 35A(3)(b) notwithstanding sub-section (4) may be an arguable question but there can be no doubt at all that, in any view, even assuming that Section 35A(4) applies to such a case, such action could be initiated within a period of one year, as has been done in the present case. 9. We are, therefore, of the opinion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
