Wrong citation in excise notice held curable where limitation and statutory procedure under the correct provision were satisfied.

Show cause notices for post-20-2-1982 excise duty demands were held not invalid merely because they invoked Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 instead of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, since the notices were within limitation and the required procedural steps under Section 11A had been followed. The wrong citation was treated as a curable defect, not a jurisdictional failure. The remand for reconsideration of duty on yarn cleared outside the factory and on waste yarn was also unsustainable because no adequate basis was shown for it; any adjustment for exempt or refundable amounts had to be pursued through the statutory refund process. The demand notices were upheld and the remand set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether show cause notices issued under Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 for duty demands relating to the period after 20-2-1982 were invalid for not invoking Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; (ii) Whether the remand for reconsideration of duty on yarn cleared outside the factory and on waste yarn was justified.

Issue (i): Whether show cause notices issued under Section 51(2)(d) of the Finance Act, 1982 for duty demands relating to the period after 20-2-1982 were invalid for not invoking Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: Section 51 of the Finance Act, 1982 was intended to give retrospective effect to the amendments to Rules 9 and 49 and to validate recoveries for the pre-amendment period. For demands relating to the period after 20-2-1982, the proper provision was Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. However, the notices in question were within the six-month period, all the procedural steps under Section 11A had been followed, and the notices also referred to the relevant excise provisions. The wrong citation of Section 51(2)(d) did not vitiate the proceedings because the power to recover and adjudicate was traceable to the same authority and the defect was only one of incorrect invocation of the provision.

Conclusion: The notices were not invalid merely because they invoked Section 51(2)(d) instead of Section 11A, and the objection to their validity failed in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the remand for reconsideration of duty on yarn cleared outside the factory and on waste yarn was justified.

Analysis: No supporting material was placed to justify the remand at that stage. Even if the duty demand had included amounts relatable to exempt or otherwise adjustable items, the proper remedy lay in claiming refund after payment, not in short-circuiting the statutory recovery process. The appellate authority therefore had no adequate basis to direct redetermination of the demand on that ground.

Conclusion: The remand direction was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal by the Department succeeded and the assessee's appeal failed, with the result that the demand notices were upheld and the remand order was removed.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand notice is not invalid merely because it cites a wrong enabling provision, if the authority is competent, the notice is within limitation, and the substantive procedure required by the correct provision has been complied with.

---