TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (7) TMI 416
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant composite mills were manufacturing yarn and fabrics in their unit, and paying duty continuously from the date of inception, on both, including the yarn captively consumed in the manufacture of fabrics. It was undertaking manufacture of various fabrics. Prior to the stage of manufacture of fabrics, also manufactures yarn falling under different categories such as cotton yarn, non-cellulosic spun yarn, cellulosic spun yarn falling within the purview of erstwhile Tariff Item Nos. 18A(I), 18-III and 18E etc. available at the relevant stage. Such levy and collection of duty continued to remain in existence by virtue of the provision of Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, and accordingly the captive consumption of yarn was also subj....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is hit by limitation, as per the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 28-4-1988 on which notice is based. It was submitted that in their case while considering 18 show cause notices, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has held in the Order No. GSM-1308/89-AHM, dated 7-6-1989 in regard to two show causes that the demand beyond the period of six months from 9-2-1983 are not recoverable from the appellant and set aside the same. Order of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Surat Dn-I, in the case of Surat Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. is also relied and cited 8 Decisions of 1987 to 1989 in the E.L.T. Proceedings are to be dropped. The Assistant Collector has confirmed the demand of Rs. 73,02,965.00 for the period from 1-7-1982 to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....printed form. No presumption can be raised in that regard. Appellant and Excise office are in same place. It is a local range. Normal practice is to send in person. Accordingly it is issued and served on 9-2-1983 as per the letter dated 16-3-1990 of the Assistant Collector to appellant, which is not denied at the earliest point of time. It is only in arguments that point is raised about the service of notice on 14-2-1983. Ground No. 3 in the appeal memorandum is not specific and clear. There is no fixed mode of serving of notice in the Rules. Para 2 of the appellate order does not say on what date notice was served. So the appeal is not fit to be allowed. In the course of reply arguments it is urged that department should produce evidence i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of dispute as to whether the notice under Section 11A of Central Excise Act had been issued or not the Assistant Collector will decide the issue. In cases where notice is not yet to be issued the respondent would be entitled to do so, but the same should not go beyond six months. In either of the said eventualities orders will not be passed by the respondent authorities without giving opportunity to the applicant to make representation against the proposed orders. If notices are issued for the above said purposes, the applicants would have 8 weeks time to reply. Where notices have already been issued, the applicants would have 8 weeks time to make representation from today" : 7. From the records, it is noticed that show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid (A) whereunder the rules made under this Act a periodical return showing the particulars of duty paid on the excisable goods removed during the period to which said return relates, is to be filed by a manufacturer or producer or a licensee of a warehouse, as the case may be, the date on which such return is so filed. Under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act (i) when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid, or has been short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, a Central Excise Officer may within six months from the relevant date serve notice on the person chargeable with duty ..... requiring him to show ....