Section 11A limitation and jurisdiction: inclusive definition of Collector upheld, and the extended-period notice survived.

Under the then Central Excise scheme, limitation under Section 11A was not computed merely from the department's date of knowledge, and the Larger Bench view was followed, so the show cause notice was not time-barred. The Tribunal also held that the inclusive definition of "Collector" in the Central Excise Rules applied with the Act where consistent, and an Additional Collector was competent to issue a notice invoking the extended period under Section 11A. Both objections therefore failed, and the demand and penalty as modified earlier were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice dated 8-1-1992 was barred by time; (ii) Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice invoking the extended period under Section 11A.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice dated 8-1-1992 was barred by time.

Analysis: The limitation objection was tested against the scheme of Section 11A and the authorities relied on for computing the relevant date. The Tribunal followed the Larger Bench view that the date of knowledge of the department is not the determinative test under Section 11A. The reliance placed on contrary decisions was distinguished on facts and on the ground that the Larger Bench ruling remained operative and had not been overruled.

Conclusion: The notice was not held to be time-barred, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Additional Collector had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice invoking the extended period under Section 11A.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the definition of "Collector" in the Central Excise Rules included an Additional Collector and that statutory rules are to be read as part of the Act where there is no inconsistency. It further held that, in the scheme of the Central Excise law then applicable, the inclusive definition could govern the expression used in Section 11A. The authorities cited supported the view that an Additional Collector could exercise the relevant power and that the notice was not invalid for want of jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Additional Collector was held competent to issue the notice, and the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both objections failed, and the demand and penalty as modified earlier were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For the relevant Central Excise regime, the inclusive definition of "Collector" in the Rules applied to Section 11A, and limitation under that provision was not to be computed merely from the department's date of knowledge where the statutory basis for issuance of notice was otherwise satisfied.

---