Demand notice ruled time-barred under Central Excise Rules; impugned orders set aside, refund ordered.

The Court held that the demand notice dated 08.04.1980 was time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as it was issued beyond the six-month limitation period without any allegations of fraud or suppression of facts. As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to refund the money deposited by the petitioner.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred demand notice under Rule 10 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Nature of the rebate order dated 04.10.1978 - provisional or final.

Summary:

1. Time-barred Demand Notice:
The petitioner challenged the demand notice dated 08.04.1980 for being time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petitioner argued that the demand notice was issued after eighteen months, exceeding the six-month limitation period prescribed by Rule 10. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court judgment in Raj Bahadur Narain Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Union of India, which held that demand notices issued beyond the six-month period without allegations of fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts are time-barred. The Court observed that the demand notice did not reference any such allegations, making it time-barred and without jurisdiction.

2. Nature of the Rebate Order:
The petitioner contended that the rebate order dated 04.10.1978 was final, not provisional. The respondents argued that the order was provisional, thus not subject to the six-month limitation under Rule 10. The Court examined the language of the rebate order and concluded that it was final except for the condition regarding the quantity of sugar cleared. The Court noted that the respondents failed to produce any evidence of a final assessment or a security bond as required under Rule 9B for provisional assessments. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. National Tobacco Co. India Ltd., the Court emphasized that the conditions for provisional assessment were not met in this case.

Conclusion:
The demand cum show cause notice dated 08.04.1980 was held to be time-barred. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 26.08.1992, 08.01.1993, and 05.02.1999 were set aside. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to refund the money deposited by the petitioner in accordance with the law.

---