https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115979 The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, for notices alleging fraud, suppression or similar grounds, required issuance by the Collector of Central Excise during the relevant period. The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was confined to the Rules and could not be imported into the Act to confer jurisdiction on an Additional Collector. In the absence of any statutory equation between Collector and Additional Collector, the Additional Collector lacked authority to issue the extended-period show cause notice, which was therefore invalid. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not validate every notice under Section 11A. en-us Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:55:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115979 The proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, for notices alleging fraud, suppression or similar grounds, required issuance by the Collector of Central Excise during the relevant period. The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was confined to the Rules and could not be imported into the Act to confer jurisdiction on an Additional Collector. In the absence of any statutory equation between Collector and Additional Collector, the Additional Collector lacked authority to issue the extended-period show cause notice, which was therefore invalid. Section 110 of the Finance Act, 2000 did not validate every notice under Section 11A. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 18 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115979