- (1.) Having heard the counsel for both sides, we are of the opinion that it is not really necessary for us to go deep into the matter.
(2.) Respondent 1 is I. T. C. Limited. It appears, searches were made by the Director General of Inspection (Customs and central Excise) in the premises of the first respondent on the basis of which he issued the proceedings called "order-in-original No. 1/1986 dated 10/4/1986". In this order, he enunciated the principles applying which the amount of duty payable by the firstrespondent should be determined. It is stated that the assessing authority determined the duty at Rs. 1,12,76,000. 04 by its order dated 17/7/1986. Later on, the assessing authority served another demand for additional excise duty amounting Rs. 8,29,10,883.25. This was done without giving an opportunity to the first respondent to meet the grounds upon which the duty was enhanced or revised, as the case may be. The respondent filed a writ petition in the High court questioning the said enhanced demand which has been allowed by the High court with the observation that before enhancing the duty payable by the first respondent, the assessing authority shall give a notice calling upon the first respondent to show cause why it should not be made liable for paying the enhanced duty. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal.
(3.) Shri Bajpai, learned counsel for the Revenue says that the direction of the High court to issue a show-cause notice was not called for, inasmuch as the order dated 17/7/1986 was only a provisional one. He submits that sub- rule (5 of Rule 9-B of the central Excise Rules does not provide for a fresh opportunity for a fresh show-cause notice being given before determining the final duty. Hence, says the counsel, no opportunity or show-cause notice was called for before serving the final demand.;