RALETRONICS LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of television sets at its factory in Bangalore. The petitioner is aggrieved by the issue of show-cause notices at annexurcs-'c' and 'd' under Section 11 -a of central excise and salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). The first show-cause notice is dated 23-5-1988 and relates to the period between January 1988 to April 1988. The second show- cause notice is dated 16-9-1988 and relates to the period between may 1988 to August 1988. Indisputably the show-cause notices in question are issued within six months from the relevant date referred to in Section 11-a of the act. These two show-cause notices have been issued by the superintendent of central excise.

(2.) it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the basis for the issue of show-cause notices being short levy of excise duty as a result of suppression of facts or violation of act or the rules with an intent to evade payment of excise duty the proviso to section-11-a (l) of the act is attracted, and the collector of central excise alone can exercise the powers in relation to such matters and not any officer of lower grade and hence they are invalid. To support the said proposition relied is placed upon the decisions in Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. And another v Union of India and others, 1988 (34), ELT 442 (SC) and Partap Rajasthan Copper Foils and Laminates ltd. V Collector of centra I excise, 1989(44) ELT 775 (tribunal).

(3.) sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned central government standing counsel submits that Section 11 -a (l) of the act is attracted in cases where duly of excise has not been levied, or has been short-levied or short paid the condition being issue of show-cause notice within the period of six months from the relevant date whatever may be the reasons for such non-levy or short levy and irrespective of whether as a result of fraud, collusion or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any Provisions to the act or otherwise. He urges that proviso is attracted only in cases where extended period of limitation beyond six months from relevant date is sought to be utilised. He submits that the ratio of the decision of gujarat high court in Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. V Union of India and others, 1988 (34), elt 442 (SC) is not applicable to the present case and that decision in Partap Rajasthan copper foils and laminats ltd. V Collector of central excise., 1989 (44), elt 775 (tribunal) is erroneous.