LAWS(MPH)-1993-5-8

GODREJ FOOD LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On May 07, 1993
Godrej Food Ltd Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition challenging a show cause notice dated 19th/21st September, 1990 issued by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Indore invoking the larger limitation of 5 years under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the 'Act').

(2.) THE petitioners manufacture a product which they insist is 'Soya Milk' whereas the Respondents contend that the product is not Soya Milk but is a beverage of Soya Milk waste product in different flavours which according to the Respondents can be described as 'flavoured Soya Milk beverages'. The petitioners have placed on record material to support their contention that the product is nothing but 'Soya Milk' and the Department had also placed material in support of their contention that the product is not 'Soya Milk' but is flavoured Soya Milk beverages.

(3.) THE petitioners contend that the impugned show cause notice involves the same points which were involved in the earlier show cause notice on which an order has already been passed against them by the Collector and an appeal is pending before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereafter referred as 'CEGAT'). The petitioners further contend that in view of their experience as regards the earlier show cause notice it cannot be said that the appellate remedy under the Act is an equally efficacious remedy. They therefore contend that this Court in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case should decide the controversy on merits itself. Alternatively it is submitted that the impugned show cause notice has been issued beyond the normal period of limitation of six months taking advantage of the extended period of limitation of 5 years under proviso to Section 11A of the Act alleging that there was suppression of facts and wilful misstatement on the part of the petitioners while getting the goods cleared. It is contended that there is no question of fraud or mispresentation or suppression of facts involved in the case and, therefore, the show cause notice was beyond limitation and therefore was without jurisdiction. .