Excise show cause notices with annexed particulars and Rule 9(2) proceedings were upheld as legally maintainable.

Show cause notices under the Central Excise regime were treated as sufficiently particular where annexures supplied the relevant periods, quantities, duty details, and related material, so they were not struck down for vagueness. Proceedings under Rule 9(2) were regarded as maintainable where excisable goods were alleged to have been removed in breach of Rule 9(1), and the truth of those allegations was left for inquiry. The rule was also viewed as supported by the rule-making power under Section 37, including power to provide for assessment, notice, and recovery of unpaid duty. Delay, laches, and pendency of a civil suit did not invalidate the notices on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned show cause notices were liable to be quashed for vagueness; (ii) Whether proceedings under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be taken on the facts alleged; (iii) Whether Rule 9(2) was ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (iv) Whether the notices were vitiated by delay, laches, or pendency of the civil suit.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned show cause notices were liable to be quashed for vagueness.

Analysis: The notices were accompanied by annexures setting out the relevant periods, categories, quantities, and duty particulars. They were also in continuation of earlier proceedings with which the appellants were already familiar. The absence of those particulars from the body of the notices did not make the notices uncertain or unintelligible.

Conclusion: The notices were not vague and were not liable to be struck down on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether proceedings under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 could be taken on the facts alleged.

Analysis: Rule 9(2) operates where excisable goods are removed in contravention of Rule 9(1). The Court rejected the contention that goods manufactured at unapproved places could escape duty altogether. On the allegations made, the applicability of Rule 9(2) could not be negatived at the threshold, and the truth of the departmental case had to be examined in the enquiry.

Conclusion: Proceedings under Rule 9(2) were maintainable on the facts alleged.

Issue (iii): Whether Rule 9(2) was ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 37 and, in particular, Section 37(2)(ib), expressly empowered the rule-making authority to provide for assessment, collection, issue of notices, and recovery of duties not paid. Rule 9(2) was framed within that statutory authority and did not travel beyond the Act.

Conclusion: Rule 9(2) was intra vires the Act.

Issue (iv): Whether the notices were vitiated by delay, laches, or pendency of the civil suit.

Analysis: The departmental action commenced soon after the alleged evasion came to light, the earlier notices had been set aside on a technical ground, and the fresh notices followed after withdrawal of the earlier appeal. The pendency of the civil suit could not bar the excise authorities from issuing and proceeding with the notices, and no limitation period defeated the action on the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The notices were not invalid on the grounds of delay, laches, or pendency of the suit.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notices failed on every substantive ground, and the appellate court affirmed the refusal to interfere with the departmental proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice supported by annexed particulars is not vague, and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is validly traceable to the rule-making power under Section 37(2)(ib) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; mere delay claimed against a notice does not defeat proceedings where the department acted promptly after detection and the action is otherwise within statutory competence.

---