https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44410 Parliament was held competent to enact Section 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as its power was not confined to Entry 84 of List I and could also rest on the residuary power under Article 248 read with Entry 97. However, the provision contained no machinery for adjudicating a disputed claim as to whether amounts had actually been collected as excise duty. The Court held that Section 11A could not be mechanically extended to such a distinct liability, and show-cause-cum-demand notices issued without an adjudicatory mechanism were without jurisdiction. The underlying statutory obligation under Section 11D was preserved. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44410 Parliament was held competent to enact Section 11D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as its power was not confined to Entry 84 of List I and could also rest on the residuary power under Article 248 read with Entry 97. However, the provision contained no machinery for adjudicating a disputed claim as to whether amounts had actually been collected as excise duty. The Court held that Section 11A could not be mechanically extended to such a distinct liability, and show-cause-cum-demand notices issued without an adjudicatory mechanism were without jurisdiction. The underlying statutory obligation under Section 11D was preserved. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44410