TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a show cause notice invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could validly be issued by a proper officer under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the adjudication order based on such notice could be sustained.
Analysis: The notice alleged short-levy and evasion for the relevant period and was issued under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The applicable proviso required that a notice of that nature be issued by the Collector of Central Excise. Rule 9(2) could not authorise any other proper officer to issue a notice contemplated by the proviso. The notice was therefore legally invalid, and the defect struck at the foundation of the adjudication.
Conclusion: The show cause notice was invalid and the adjudication order could not be sustained.
TaxTMI 
