UNION OF INDIA Vs. P PARAMESWARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. T.S. Rajmohan, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. S. Mani, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 21.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [for short, 'CAT'] in O.A. No.678 of 1999, the Union of India and two other subordinate authorities have filed the present writ petition. The first respondent was employed as Superintendent of Central Excise at Komarapalayam Range, Erode from 01.5.1995 to 11.7.1996. While discharging his duties as Range Officer, in respect of the monthly returns submitted by P.K.P.N. Spinning Mills Private Limited from July 1995 to February 1996, it was alleged that he failed to issue show cause notice for the short levy of duty required to be paid by the assessee on revision of prices for the sale from the depot and for the goods removed for own use for which the factory gate prices were not available. The first respondent made only an endorsement in the RT 12 Assessment Form for each month and informed the assessee that they were liable to pay differential duty of Rs.27,30,692-. Since the assessee did not pay the differential duty, they were not issued with show cause notice as per the instructions of the Customs and Central Excise Board. It was also alleged that in terms of Rule 173-C(4) of the Central Excise Rules, an obligation is caused on the Assessing Officer (first respondent) and that he did not follow the said rule. The said assessee filed 8 appeals before the Commissioner of Appeals each one for every month and four appeals were decided on merits. The Appellate commissioner held that the demands made in the RT-12 assessment suffered from the vice and violation of principle of natural justice as the demand cannot be made by a mere endorsement in the RT-12. Since no notice was issued within the limitation period, the impugned order was set aside. This, according to the petitioners resulted in considerable loss to the Department and, therefore, disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules imposing minor penalty in respect of the charge memoranda dated 02.4.1997 and 29.8.1997 for the two sets of assessment period.

(3.) EVEN before this Court, reliance was placed on the following passage found in paragraphs 40, 42 and 43 of the Nagarkar's case (cited supra) were pressed into service.