Fraud cases under excise law: Collector of Central Excise remained the competent notice-issuing authority before the 1992 amendment.

Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it stood before the 1992 amendment, was interpreted to mean that in cases involving fraud the Collector of Central Excise was the competent authority to issue notice, whether the notice was within six months or issued later. The provision was treated as ambiguous, and the construction favouring the assessee was preferred, supported by the Government's own understanding and consistency with the earlier Supreme Court view in Collector of Central Excise v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The notice-issuing authority in such fraud cases was therefore held to be the Collector of Central Excise.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as it stood prior to the 1992 amendment, the competent authority to issue notice in cases involving fraud was the Collector of Central Excise irrespective of whether the notice was issued within six months or thereafter.

Analysis: The provision was capable of more than one interpretation. The Government's own understanding showed that, in cases involving fraud, notice could be issued by the Collector of Central Excise regardless of the period of limitation. In view of the ambiguity and the subsequent amendment in 1992, the interpretation favouring the assessee was preferred. The construction was also aligned with the earlier decision of the Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission.

Conclusion: The interpretation favouring the assessee was accepted, and the notice-issuing authority was held to be the Collector of Central Excise in such cases.

---