2017 (9) TMI 1186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow cause notice issued by the department, which was otherwise covered by Rule 9 and 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 invoked in the show cause notice, can be a ground for dismissal of the said show cause notice. " 2 Facts giving rise to filing of the instant appeal briefly stated are that the respondent i.e M/s Chenab Textiles Mills, Kathua which is holding Central Excise Registration for the manufacture of Cotton Yarn/Non Cellulosic/Cellulosic/Acrylic/Acrylone yarn falling under Chapters 52 and 55 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 contravened the provisions of erstwhile Rule 9(1), 49, 52, 173C, 173G, 173F of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by not making the payment of adequate central excise duty during the period from November 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ices were fully covered by the ratio of the decision of the High Court dated 13.11.2001 and the remaining show cause notices except 5th show cause notice which partially covered the period up to 18.05.1995 are invalid. However, the remaining show cause notices were held to be valid. It was further held by the Tribunal that a perusal of show cause notice would indicate that no specific mention has been made with regard to the proviso which was added by Notification No. 84/1995 dated 18.05.1995. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. In the aforesaid factual background, the Revenue has filed this appeal. 4 Learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue at the very outset fairly submitted that the 1st four show cause notice....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned counsel for the assessee has submitted that the show cause notices for the period from May, 1995 up to July 1996 are vague and unintelligible, inasmuch they do disclose the basis on which the demand of the excise duty, penalty and interest has been made by the Revenue. It is further submitted that there is no mention of withdrawal of the exemption which was granted to the assessee, therefore, the same has resulted in prejudice to the assessee. It is submitted that had the assessee been furnished the particulars with regard to the notification dated 18.05.1995, the assessee would have effectively contested the proceedings. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the assessee has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in the ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....25.04.1996. However, the show cause notices were invalid merely on the ground that in the show cause notices, no specific mention has been made to the proviso added to the notification dated 18.05.1995. 6 At this stage, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant extract of one of the demand cum show cause notice dated 11.10.1996 which reads as under: "From Nov' 94 onwards, the Noticee has started entering the production of yarn (manufactured by them) in the RG-I Register at the Single Yarn stage i.e at the spindle stage and after paying the Central Excise duty at this stage only, removed the production for Captive Consumption for doubling/multi-folding etc of yarn. Thus the doubled/multifold yarn or finished yarn i.e resultant yarn m....