(1.) The short point that arises in these appeals by the Revenue,against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, is whether show-cause notice dated March 6, 1998 issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, invoking proviso to S. 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is valid in law
(2.) The respondent-assessee manufactures goods of copper and copper alloys. Shells and blanks manufactured by it were cleared without payment of excise duty and were captively consumed as in manufacture of pipes and tubes during the period March 1, 1981 to December 5, 1985. The Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, issued notice to the assessee on March 6, 1986 invoking the proviso to S. 11-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, the Act) to show cause why duty amounting to Rs.11,83, 19476.94 leviable on shells and blanks for the period between March 1, 1981 to December 5, 1985 should not be recovered, seized goods should not be confiscated and penalty should not be imposed. In reply, the assessee, inter alia, challenged the validity of the notice to show cause issued by the Deputy Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur. By his order dated April 12, 1989, the Collector, Central Excise, Jaipur, upheld the validity of the said notice, partly upheld the demand of duty, ordered confiscation of seized goods and imposed a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs. The order of the Collector upholding the validity of the said show-cause notice dated March 6, 1986 was assailed before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short, the Tribunal). On March 25, 1991, the Tribunal, by majority, held the show cause notice to be invalid. It is from that order of the Tribunal that the present appeals have arisen.
(3.) Mr. T. L. V. Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-Revenue, contends that even if the notice is held to be invalid for the extended period under the proviso, it has to be treated as valid for the shorter period of six months.