9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter alia bottles for beverages. During virtually all of the period with which we are concerned - February 1983 to January 1988 - it sold these bottles to Glass and Ceramics Decorators (GCD for short). GCD, after printing the logo and product information of such manufacturers on these bottles, sold the bottles to the beverage manufacturers. The respective jurisdictional Collectors issued notices in 1988 to Mahalaxmi and WIG proposing that in view of the fact that majority of the bottles were sold to GCD, it is the price at which GCD sold these goods that should form the basis of the assessable value. The notice proposed to apply the third clause of the proviso under sub-clause (1) of Section 4 of the Act. Penalty was also proposed on the com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench, purported to be issued in pursuance of those orders, proposed to determine the "value of excisable goods in question under Section 4(1)(b) of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 - r/w/CE Valuation Rules, 1975". The notice also said that it was to be "read in conjunction with" the earlier notice issued in 1990. The manufacturers and their directors refused to answer the charges unless it was made clear to them under what specific provision of law the value was proposed to be enhanced. The Collector passed an order ex parte, confirming the proposal in the notice. On appeal, this order was also set aside by the Tribunal as not having been passed in conformity with the principles of natural justice. The Collector thereupon once again adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epartmental representative's point when he says that if the intention were not to direct issue of a fresh notice, the Tribunal itself could have finally disposed of the matter. But, obviously, it is not possible for us to go into this aspect. It is that Bench which heard both sides that would have been aware of the nuances of the matter. Nor is it necessary for us to go into it. Neither side appealed this order. Nothing prevented the department from raising, then, before the Supreme Court, the objection that the departmental representative now raises. 5.Even if we assume that there was such a direction for issue of a notice the fact that remains that there is no provision in law to issue it. The Tribunal is a creature of the statute, and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f law proposed to be applied should be considered to be valid. It is a fundamental principle of law that every person must be made aware of the case against him, and given a reasonable opportunity to meet it. A notice that does not indicate, with a reasonable degree of precision and certainty, the particular provision of law out of many available for application, falls far short of doing so. There is, in fact, no difference between such a notice, and one that does not cite any provision of law at all. 7.We are also not able to appreciate the argument of the departmental representative that paragraphs 54 and 57 of the first notice (of 1988) provide material for invoking the Valuation Rules. Paragraph 54 took note of the fact that the bottl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
