Jurisdiction to issue extended-period excise notice required Collector authority; an Additional Collector's notice was invalid.

The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, for notices alleging fraud, suppression or similar grounds, required issuance by the Collector of Central Excise during the relevant period. The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was confined to the Rules and could not be imported into the Act to confer jurisdiction on an Additional Collector. In the absence of any statutory equation between Collector and Additional Collector, the Additional Collector lacked authority to issue the extended-period show cause notice, which was therefore invalid. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not validate every notice under Section 11A.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act could validly be issued by the Additional Collector for the extended period of limitation.

Analysis: For the relevant period, the proviso to Section 11A(1) required the notice for demand of duty not levied or short levied by reason of fraud, suppression or similar grounds to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise. The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was confined to the Rules and could not be imported into the Act. Since the Central Excise Act contained no provision equating Collector with Additional Collector, the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to issue such notice. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 was held not to validate every notice under Section 11A on any ground, and the decision relied upon by the Revenue was found inapplicable.

Conclusion: The show cause notice issued by the Additional Collector for the extended period of limitation was without jurisdiction and invalid. The appeal was allowed.

---