https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280674 Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it stood before the 1992 amendment, was interpreted to mean that in cases involving fraud the Collector of Central Excise was the competent authority to issue notice, whether the notice was within six months or issued later. The provision was treated as ambiguous, and the construction favouring the assessee was preferred, supported by the Government's own understanding and consistency with the earlier Supreme Court view in Collector of Central Excise v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The notice-issuing authority in such fraud cases was therefore held to be the Collector of Central Excise. en-us Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2020 17:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280674 Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as it stood before the 1992 amendment, was interpreted to mean that in cases involving fraud the Collector of Central Excise was the competent authority to issue notice, whether the notice was within six months or issued later. The provision was treated as ambiguous, and the construction favouring the assessee was preferred, supported by the Government's own understanding and consistency with the earlier Supreme Court view in Collector of Central Excise v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission. The notice-issuing authority in such fraud cases was therefore held to be the Collector of Central Excise. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280674