- (1.) The question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the Collector of central Excise, Madras, is whether the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal committed any error of law in coming to thefinding that the entire proceedings initiated against the appellant by issuing Form D. D. 2 were a nullity in the absence of any show-cause notice issued by the Department.
(2.) Even though the learned Additional Solicitor General attempted to assail the finding recorded by the tribunal and urged that Form D. D. 2 issued by the Department should itself be taken as a show-cause notice or in the alternative in view of the letter issued by the Office of the Superintendent of central Excise, copy of which has been filed as Annx. I to the rejoinder-affidavit, the matter may be remanded to the tribunal for deciding afresh, he fairly stated that the letter was not on record either before the tribunal or any other subordinate authority and the departmental representative had conceded before the tribunal that no show-cause notice was issued. In view of this, it does not appear appropriate to enter into the controversy at this stage as to whether the Annx. filed with the rejoinder- affidavit was in fact a show-cause notice or not. Nor does it appear necessary to decide whether Form D. D. 2 could be deemed to be a show-cause notice as prima facie in the relevant year these forms were issued in pursuance of Rules 9, 10-A etc. of the central Excise Rules, 1944 which were provisions dealing with recovery of dues.
(3.) In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.;