TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (12) TMI 221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant and pleaded that the duty amount is at Rs. 1,95,690.48 and the period involved is 1st January, 1980 to 31st December 1980 and the show cause notice is dated 1st December 1981. Shri Sridharan, the learned advocate has pleaded that in the show cause notice there is no allegation of suppression and as such, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and prima facie the applicant has got a good case on the limitation aspect. On merits he pleaded that there are bought out items. Duty has also been levied on them. He fairly stated that there is no financial hardship and pleaded that since prima facie the applicant has got a good case on merits and the same is to be treated as undue hardship a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 26-3-1980 2. Job charges 2,08,385.24 Annexure 'A' attached 3. Freight forwarding, handling Insurance and packing charges etc. 2,56,845,63 Annexure 'B' attached 4. Goods cleared on invoices but duty sunot paid 79,71,667.42 84,81,898.29 Thus it is clear from the perusal of the above invoices that M/s. Triveni Engineering Works did not pay Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 6,78,551.86 for clearance of the goods under T.I. 68 according to their invoice value. I, therefore, demand them to pay duty amounting to Rs. 63,122.50 under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 and show cause to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise I.D.O., Allahabad within 10 days fro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2." The mere non-mentioning of the proviso in the show cause notice will not vitiate the proceedings. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Muniyalla reported in AIR 1985 SC 470 had held as under :- "But it is now well-settled that merely because an order is purported to be made under a wrong provision of law, it does not become invalid so long as there is some other provision of law under which the order could be validly made. Mere recital of a wrong provision of law does not have the effect of invalidating an order which is otherwise within the power of the authority making it. Here the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge had power under S. 194 of the Criminal P.C. to make over Sessions Case No. 17/79 to the VI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n conformity with Rule 10. But the contention of the assessee is that the demand having been made under Rule 9(2) and there being no indication in that demand it was made under Rule 10, the Revenue cannot now change its position and justify the demand under R. 10 at any rate by the time the Government amended the demand, the duty claimed became barred even under Rule 10. We are unable to accept this contention as correct. There is no dispute that the officer who made the demand was competent to make demands both under Rule 9(2) as well as under Rule 10. If the exercise of a power can be traced to a legitimate source, the fact that the same was purported to have been exercised under a different power does not vitiate the exercise of the powe....