Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the revised show cause notice dated 7-3-1981 was only a continuation of the earlier notice dated 20-11-1980 for the purpose of limitation, and whether the demand could therefore be limited only to six months from the earlier notice.
Analysis: The original notice was held to be defective in material particulars. It did not specify the precise provision invoked, the exact amount of differential duty, the Chemical Examiner's report was not furnished, and the allegations as to end use were stated only in vague terms. The revised notice, issued later, set out the allegations and supporting material in a proper manner and therefore constituted the valid notice to be met in law. In the absence of any case for extended limitation, the six-month period had to be reckoned from the revised notice.
Conclusion: The demand was rightly restricted to six months from 7-3-1981, and the penalty was also rightly waived. The revenue appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The order under challenge was upheld, with the demand confined to the period computed from the revised show cause notice and no penalty sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice for short levy must contain the material particulars and supporting basis of the demand; if the initial notice is materially vague and defective, limitation runs from the first valid notice, not from the earlier defective one.