TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (3) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80. The issue involves the excisability and dutiability of dye grade cotton fabrics which emerge as an intermediate product in the process of manufacture of Cotton fabrics. 2. Heard Shri R.C. Kumar, Learned Advocate for the appellants who submits as follows :- (i)  The issue is covered by six Show cause notices out of which the first Show cause notice dated 15-3-1977 is issued under Rule 10 for period from 16-3-1976 to 28-2-1977 under old Rule 10. The said old Rule 10 was omitted out of the Statute books with effect from 6-8-1977 and was substituted by a new Rule 10 as well as Rule 10A. (ii) The second and third Show cause notices both dated 24-8-1979 collectively covering the period from 1-3-1977 to 31-7-1979 were t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d on 4-5-1993, i.e., almost more than a decade later. He submits that all pending Proceedings under both that Rule 10 lapsed after the said Rule said to have statutory effect because the succeeding Rule corresponding thereto did not contain any Savings Clause with respect to the earlier legislations. He further submitted that even Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not be applicable to the facts of this case as has been clearly held by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in the case of Madura Coats as reported in 1990 (48) E.L.T. 321. The same decision was again reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court at Madras in the case of Non-Ferrous Rolling Mills as reported in 1991 (52) E.L.T. 487 (Madras) which also followed the earlier judgment. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of that new Rule 10 later by Section 11A of the Act with effect from 17-11-1990 amounted to amendment and not a repeal and therefore remand notices issued under the old Rules and which were in force are enforceable even after substitution. He submits that the present facts are clearly covered by this full Bench decision which will prevail over the two Single Bench decision of the Madras High Court. With respect to the Learned Advocate's submission of the two revised Show cause notices suffering from time bar as they are to be treated as fresh notices. Learned DR submits the decision in the case of ACME Batteries Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E. as reported in 1991 (54) E.L.T. 256 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that a Show cause notice issued consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;We have carefully considered the rival submissions and records of the case. We find that this issue was earlier adjudicated upon by Assistant Collector of Central Excise but vide their Orders in W.P. No. 8299/87, dated 11-12-1990 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka had set aside all earlier Orders-in-Original on these Show cause notices and had remanded the matter to the Jurisdictional Collector of Central Excise for de novo consideration of the same. We also find that accordingly the Collector had issued the Order-in-Original impugned before us. 6. We first proceed to consider the issue of Jurisdiction and legality of the Proceedings impugned before us on the grounds that with the repeal of the old Rule 10 as submitted by Learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ow the said two decisions instead of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat noted above. Doing so, we find that the four Show cause notices concerned in these Proceedings could not have been adjudicated upon in the manner done in the Order-in-Original impugned on the date when this order was passed, because the said Rule 10 covering the Show cause notices as noted above, from time to time, ceased to be law much before the said Order-in-Original impugned was passed. 7. We now proceed to consider the question of limitation by time bar under the said Rules with respect to each of these four show cause notices. In this connection, we find that the Facts of this case are different from the facts in the case cited by the Learne....