TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (12) TMI 200
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed for today's hearing. Since the issue involved in both the matters is common and as such both the stay applications are being disposed of by this common order. Shri A.K.S. Bedi, learned Advocate pleaded that the appellant is a manufacturer of television sets and the period in dispute is 24-6-1977 to 12-9-1980. He pleaded that the television sets were assessed under erstwhile Tariff Item 33A(1) and price lists were filed in Part-I and provisional assessments were approved initially. He pleaded that forwarding and packing charges have been included in the assessable value. He pleaded that in the show-cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector there was no mention of the demands and the demands were raised by the Superintendent. He also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....second matter, the demand is Rs. 15,56,645/-, as well as penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/-. He pleaded that in view of the liquidity position of the appellants, they are not in a position to deposit any amount. Shri Bedi, learned Advocate in support of his arguments submitted that no amounts could be recovered without issue of a show-cause notice. He cited the following decisions :- (1) Aluminium Industries Ltd., Kerala v. Collector of Central Excise, Cochin reported in 1987 (30) E.L.T. 442; (2) Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneshwar v. Orissa Concrete Products (P) Ltd. reported in 1986 (26) E.L.T. 284; (3) Mahindra Engineering & Chemical Products Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 680. He referred to a decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d as such they are reasonably sound enough. He pleaded for the rejection of the stay applications. 3. In reply, Shri Bedi, learned Advocate again reiterated his arguments and pleaded that there has never been a profit and in support of his argument, he referred to the Balance Sheet filed by the appellants. 4. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. For the proper appreciation of the legal position, we have perused the show-cause notices. The original show-cause notice dt. 11-5-1981 appears on page No. 24 and second show cause notice also dated 11-5-1981 appears on page Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of the paper book. Original show cause notice pertains to the price lists effective from 27-1-1981 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause notice under Rule 10 must state the rule under which it is issued as long as the requirements of that rule are satisfied; (ii) the notice must require the party to show cause to the proper officer why he should not pay a certain stated amount; (iii) the amount must be stated and manifestly specified in the notice itself; (iv) the party must not be relegated to conjecture, speculation or calculations in order to ascertain the amount in respect of which the show cause notice is issued; (v) the amount determined by the authority as payable shall not exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice; and (vi) such amount which the party is ordered to pay must be stated and manifestly specified in the order without relegating the party ....