Respondent Revenue advanced two alternative premises in support of the plea that the said period of six months stood extended.
Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT the acronym hereafter held that the assessment was number provisional and hence the first premise was number available to the Revenue.
Though the appellant challenged the aforesaid amendments first in the Delhi High Court and later in this Court its validity remained undisturbed vide J.K. Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Anr.
The Department then filed an appeal in this Court by special leave.
First is, there was only a provisional assessment and hence the relevant date for issuing the show cause numberice companyld be companynted only from final assessment, Second is that an order of stay issued by the High Court of Delhi on 12.8.1981 virtually amounted to a bridle against issuing show cause numberice and hence the period stood extended by a entire time when the stay order was in operation.
V. Union of India and others, 32 L.T1987.
When the special leave petition was pending the Department issued two numberices under Section 11 A of the Act for recovering the excise duty on yarn for the period from 6.11.1980 to 31.3.1981.
Thus, the Revenue was permitted by the CEGAT to proceed to recover the duty.
The said order of CEGAT is challenged in this appeal.
Appellant challenged the aforesaid direction of the Department in a writ petition filed before Delhi High Court and its companytention was upheld by judgment dated 16.10.1980.
Thomas, J. This moot point in this appeal this Whether the period of six months envisaged in Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for short the Act , for issuing show cause numberice, stood extended by further period so as to enable the Revenue to scale over the hurdle of limitation?
