ARJUNDAS RAMLAL GURWADA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy in this petition stands concluded by two decisions of this Court in B. K. Paper mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U. O. I. [1984 (18) E. L. T. 701] and in Central India Spg. Wvg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. U. O. I. [1987 (30) E. L. T. 217]. Mr. Khemkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that three show cause notices dated October 24, 1978, March 22, 1979 and august 29, 1979 were served on the petitioner under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules in respect of short levy of duty. The learned counsel urged that Rule 10 was deleted with effect from November 17, 1980 and was replaced by Section 11a of the Central Excises Act (herein after referred to as the 'act' ). It was urged by the learned counsel that after deletion of Rule 10, the demand made under the show cause notices cannot survive. In support of the submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Gujarat High Court in Amit Processors Pvt. Ltd. v. U. O. I. [1985 (21) E. L. T. 24] and the decision of the Supreme Court in Rayala Corpn. v. Director of Enforcement (AIR 1970 S. C. 494 ). We are unable to find any merit in the submission for more than one reason.

(2.) IN the first instance, the three show cause notices served under Rule 10 of the Central Excise rules merged in the final order passed by the Assistant Collector on November 5, 1979 in respect of the first two notices and on December 12, 1979 in respect of the third show cause notice. All the three notices were made absolute. It is, therefore, obvious that the show cause notices issued under Rule 10 no longer remained to be proceedings un-disposed of on November 17, 1980 and hence, the decision of the Gujarat High Court will have no application. Mr. Khemkar submitted that the appeals preferred by the petitioner were disposed of on May 11, 1984 and that should be considered as the relevant date to find out whether proceedings under rule 10 can survive. The submission is devoid of any merit. The show cause notices merged in the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and these orders were passed long before November 17, 1980.

(3.) THE second aspect of the matter is that we are unable to share the view taken by the Gujarat high Court. We have held in our judgment dated September 18, 1990 delivered in Writ Petition no. 1645 of 1982 that in spite of deletion of Rule 10, the proceedings can continue in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. Rule 10 was deleted on November 17, 1980 and was substituted by the provisions of Section 11a of the Act. For these reasons, we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Khemkar that the proceedings commenced by show cause notice issued under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules cannot be continued and orders enforced.