TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (9) TMI 211
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred to as 'CET'). Some of the dye stuffs were exempt from payment of excise duty in terms of Notification 180/61 dated 23-11-1961 issued under Rule 8(l) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the 'Rules' for short). With the issue of Central Excise Notification 71/78 dated 1-3-1978, the appellants became eligible for duty exemption on all synthetic organic dyestuffs manufactured by them subject, however, to the conditions set out in the notification. One of the conditions was that during the financial year the total value of the clearances eligible for duty exemption should not exceed rupees five lakhs. The notification did not contain a specific provision as to whether the value of clearances free of duty in terms of notification 180/61 d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and would therefore need to be excluded from the computation of the limit of the value of the goods eligible for duty exemption in terms of notification 71/78. 4. In so far as the first aspect is concerned, the show cause notice as we have noted, was issued on 17-12-1979, the period of demand being August 78 to November 78. The notice was therefore evidently barred by limitation. It will be clear from what follows that the benefit of the extended period of limitation was not available to the Revenue on the facts and in circumstances of this case. 5. As regards the second aspect, Shri Gujral drew our attention to the Superintendent's letter dated 17-6-1978 in response to the appellant's letter dated 12-6-1978. By this letter the Superi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cumstance which would entitle the Department to demand duty for the extended period of limitation beyond six months. 6. Shri Gujral cited before us a number of authorities in support of his proposition that demands arising as a consequence of finalisation of Assessment Returns (RT12) should be preceded by a. proper show cause notice and adjudication proceedings. It is not necessary to refer to all of them. In the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Madhu Milan Syntex Private Ltd. 1988 (35) E.L.T. 349 (SC), the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that before any demand for duty is made on any person chargeable in respect of non-levy or short-levy or under payment of duty, a notice requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amounts....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ses & Salt Act and not by an entry on the RT 12 Returns which cannot be taken to be a proper show cause notice. The Court referred, with approval, to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Good Shepherd Rubber Company, Palghat v. Inspector of Central Excise, Palghat & Ors. -1978(2) E.L.T. (J 66).'This judgment, which was of a Learned Single Judge, was confirmed by a Division Bench of the High Court and this judgment is reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 471). The view taken was that pointing out short levy on Assessment Returns with a direction to pay the amount would not be sufficient compliance with the requirements of Rule 10 which stipulated the issue of a proper show cause notice followed by proper adjudication proceedings before any sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulate the duty payable and make payments accordingly. The short payments were pointed out in the RT 12 Returns as also the letters of 17-10-1979 and 27-11-1979. Though no formal show cause notice was issued at the time of raising demands on the Assessment Returns, the letters referred to together with the subsequent show cause notice should be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the statutory requirements especially because the reasons for short levy were made known and the demands in RT 12 Returns were also made within the period of six months. 9. We have considered the submissions of both sides. In our view, the submissions made by Shri Naik are devoid of any substance in the light of the several authorities including pronouncement....