Appeals Dismissed Due to Incorrect Authority Issuing Show Cause Notices

Both Civil Appeal No. 6388 of 1995 and Civil Appeal No. 12317 of 1996 were dismissed as the show cause notices were not issued by the competent authority as required by the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In the first appeal, the notice was issued by the Superintendent instead of the Collector, and in the second appeal, the Assistant Collector issued the notice, lacking the necessary authority. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed based on the lack of competence of the issuing authorities.

---

---

Issues involved: Determination of whether show cause notices issued u/s 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 were issued by the competent authority as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A.

Civil Appeal No. 6388 of 1995:
In this appeal, the show cause notice dated November 25, 1986, was issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs Headquarters, alleging wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The Tribunal held that since the notice was not issued by the Collector as required by the proviso to Section 11A(1), it was invalid. The appeal was dismissed based on the lack of competence of the issuing authority.

Civil Appeal No. 12317 of 1996:
In this appeal, the show cause notice dated 7-11-1986 was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, alleging inaction amounting to wilful mis-statement and suppression of facts. The Tribunal correctly determined that the Assistant Collector was not the competent authority to issue the notice as per the proviso to Section 11A(1). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the lack of authority in issuing the notice.

In conclusion, both appeals were dismissed as the show cause notices were not issued by the competent authority as required by the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

---