TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (10) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g Mills at the relevant time engaged in business inter alia of manufacture of various types of yarn from synthetic fibres or admixture with natural fibres at their factory situated at Thane. By Notification No. 131/77 certain concessions were allowed to cross reel hanks on viscose and cotton yarn. But then, by another Notification No. 213/77, dated 6-7-1977 the concession contemplated by Notification No. 131/77, dated 18-6-1977 was allowable only to the sale of yarn in cross reel hanks to the co-operative societies provided the payment is made by cheque by the co-operative societies. 3. On 26-11-1977 the Superintendent of Central Excise, Thane requested the appellants to furnish the figures of the clearance of the cross reel hanks sold a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2-1977 was barred atleast for the period being six months immediately preceding 17-2-1978. Shri Jois urged that the authorities below were not justified in treating the letter dated 26-11-1977 addressed by the Superintendent as the show cause notice and on that assumption their finding that no portion of the demand is barred by limitation is erroneous. Shri Jois also contended that since RT-12 returns were finalised the department cannot demand any differential duty thereafter. It was also contended by Shri Jois that no differential duty could be demanded in respect of yarn manufactured prior to 6-7-1977 but cleared after 6-7-1977. At this stage Shri Jois was informed by the Bench that if the above submission was to be accepted then this Re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o urged that a communication by the Superintendent cannot be considered as a show cause notice. In support of the above contention, Shri Jois relied on the following decisions : 1986 (25) E.L.T. 783; 1985 (19) E.L.T. 451; and 1985 (19) E.L.T. 329. 8. The short question for our consideration is whether the demand of differential duty or any part of it is barred by time. 9. The show cause notice in this case is dated 17-2-1978. It was issued under Rule 10 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The differential duty was demanded for the period from 6-7-1977 to 31-12-1977. The amount of duty demanded from them was Rs. 2,44,246.95. In this show cause notice there was a reference to the Range Superintendent's lette....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication No. 213/77 amounts to wilful mis-declaration and suppression of facts. If the reasoning of the Collector (Appeals) is to be adopted there was ignorance not only on the part of the appellants but also on the part of the department as to the Notification No. 213/77. In spite of the said Notification 213/77, RT-12 returns submitted by the appellants were being finalised without taking any objection. Therefore, the ignorance is more on the part of the department. That apart, it is difficult to accept the observation of the Collector (Appeals) that non-compliance of the Notification amounts to wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts. It is one thing to state that ignorance of law is no excuse, but it is all together a different thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notice till 17-2-1978 even though the required particulars were furnished by the applicants in their letter dated 2-12-1977. There is considerable force in the contention of Shri Jois that the letter of the Superintendent has no attributes of the show cause notice. The show cause notice should not only indicate the duty required to be paid but also should give reasonable opportunity to the appellants for showing cause against the demand. As has been held by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 1985 (19) E.L.T. 329 in the case of Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Another a show cause notice is not an empty formality. It postulates the opportunity of showing cause to be adequate. It is not merely enabling a party to m....