TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 575
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....X[DB] on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [for short, 'the Tribunal']. The Tribunal, by this impugned order dated 12.08.2024, has partly allowed the appellant's appeal against the Order-in-Original No. 35/2011 dated 30.11.2011 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore-I, Commissionerate, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Commissioner']. The appellant's grievance is not confined to the relief that is refused by the Tribunal but is to the very initiation of the proceedings with the Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2005. 2. Sri Chidananda Urs B G, the learned counsel for the appellant, while submitting that the show cause notice does not refer to the 'classification' under the F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have been initiated to raise a demand based on the expenditure incurred by such R & D Unit. 3.1 The Show-cause Notice dated 22.11.2005, while recording that the appellant has manufactured excisable goods [prototypes] and has removed such goods without following the procedure, refers to the prototypes mentioned in the statement of facts as follows: "2. Whereas it appears that the R & D unit of ITIL is engaged in the production model or prototype and is clearing the same for field trial or customer approval. Whereas it appears that the model/prototype produced are excisable goods chargeable to duty under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 at the rate specified under the schedule to the said Tariff Act depending on its classification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand must fail with the entire proceedings. The learned counsel proposes to rely upon the decision of the Apex Court in 'The Commissioner of Central Excise and Another v. Damodar Poly Fab [P] Ltd' 2018 [14] GSTL 162 [SC] to contend that Section 11A of the Act enjoins a duty on the concerned Central Excise Officer to extend an opportunity to an assessee to show cause why there should not be a levy of duty and that the show cause notice must refer to the particular chapter, Heading Sub-heading under which the classification is made. The learned counsel submits that in the case on hand, the Apex Court has observed, underscoring the importance of mentioning the chapter, Heading and Sub-heading that even if an assessee admits classifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that fact is stated in the Show-cause notice, the Central Excise authorities cannot assume jurisdiction to levy demand. The controversy over the classification and the rate and even whether the goods are manufactured or produced in India could be facts in issue but an assertion that the goods are manufactured/produced in India and are subject to duty of excise at a particular rate based on certain classification would be a jurisdictional fact, and in the absence of this jurisdictional fact, the authority cannot assume jurisdiction. 7. This Court may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in 'Arun Kumar and Others v. Union of India and Others' [2007] 1 SCC 732. As is obvious from the extracted portion of the Show-cause notice, ....