Padmin Unni ( Mrs ) Vs. Union of India and Another
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 1983 ,
Petitioner: Padmin Unni ( Mrs )
Respondent: Union of India and Another
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6152 of 1983 ,
Judges: J.S. VERMA , C.J. & B.N. KIRPAL , J.
Date of Judgment: Jul 24, 1997
Head Note:
EXCISE LAWS
Central Excise Rules, 1944
Rule 9(2) ( As amended ) – Demand – Show cause notice dated 6.10.77 – Demand for period of 6.2.69 to 16.4.77 – Only tab-seals manu-factured and not pilfer-proof caps – Held that the goods mere not even caps , the notice could not make demand for a period earlier than six months . Notice quashed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1 . A show-cause notice dated 6-10-1977 was issued to the ap-pellant demanding duty for the period between 6-2-1969 and 16-4-1977 . The duty was imposed on the basis that the goods were to be classified as pilfer-proof caps . It is clear from the facts that the assessee manufactured merely tab seals for supply to the Indian Oil Corporation for being used for the purpose of sealing of oil drums . In view of the nature of goods , it could not be classified as pilfer-proof caps because it was only a seal and not a cap . That apart , amended Rule 9(2) introduced six months ‘ period of limitation and for that reason , a show-cause notice could not make any demand for a period a earlier than six months preceding the date of the notice .
2 . In view of the fact that the goods were not even caps , they could not be classified as pilfer-proof caps . This alone is sufficient to quash the notice dated 6-10-1977 . Consequently , the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal , Central Board of Excise & Customs and Collector of Central Excise are set aside .
1 . A show-cause notice dated 6-10-1977 was issued to the ap-pellant demanding duty for the period between 6-2-1969 and 16-4-1977 . The duty was imposed on the basis that the goods were to be classified as pilfer-proof caps . It is clear from the facts that the assessee manufactured merely tab seals for supply to the Indian Oil Corporation for being used for the purpose of sealing of oil drums . In view of the nature of goods , it could not be classified as pilfer-proof caps because it was only a seal and not a cap . That apart , amended Rule 9(2) introduced six months ‘ period of limitation and for that reason , a show-cause notice could not make any demand for a period a earlier than six months preceding the date of the notice .
2 . In view of the fact that the goods were not even caps , they could not be classified as pilfer-proof caps . This alone is sufficient to quash the notice dated 6-10-1977 . Consequently , the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgments of the Tribunal , Central Board of Excise & Customs and Collector of Central Excise are set aside .
