1985 (9) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Allowed Due to Time-Barred Notice - Jurisdiction and Cause Title Discrepancies Resolved

NS. TIN FACTORY Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN

NS. TIN FACTORY Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 203 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Transfer of application to the Tribunal treated as an appeal.2. Discrepancy in cause title jurisdiction.3. Show cause notices issued for duty demand.4. Appeal based on limitation of show cause notice.5. Respondent's argument on the issuance of show cause notice.6. Lack of reference to earlier demand notices in the show cause notice.7. Interpretation of the show cause notice as a fresh starting point.8. Decision based on limitation without delving into the merits of the case.Analysis:1. The original application transferred to the Tribunal is treated as an appeal against the order passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The matter involves the transfer of jurisdiction and cause title discrepancies, which were resolved by confirming no need for a change.2. The case involves multiple show cause notices issued for duty demand for the years 1970 and 1971. The appellants contested the validity of a show cause notice dated 29-3-1978, claiming it as a fresh proceeding due to a lack of reference to earlier notices, arguing that the demand is time-barred.3. The Department argued that the 1978 show cause notice was issued in pursuance of an Appellate Order from 1974 and referred to the same duty amount. The Department contended that the delay in issuing the notice was due to work pressure and asserted that the appellants had no merit in their case.4. The Tribunal acknowledged that the 1978 show cause notice did not mention the earlier demand notices. It was established that treating the 1978 notice as the starting point for adjudication would render it time-barred under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Central Excises Rules, 1944.5. Considering the lack of indication that the 1978 notice was issued in compliance with the 1974 Appellate Order, the Tribunal deemed it a fresh starting point for proceedings, concluding that the notice was time-barred. The appeal was allowed solely on the grounds of limitation without delving into the merits of the case.6. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on limitation precluded a detailed examination of the case's merits. By focusing on the legal ground of limitation, the Tribunal resolved the issue without addressing the substantive aspects of the case.This comprehensive analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the limitation of the show cause notice, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal without delving into the case's merits.