A.P.Misra. J. - (1.) We have heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are disposing of this writ petition finally.
(2.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 2nd July, 1991 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, annexed as Annexure-4 to the present writ petition. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, decided the matter and confirmed the demand of Rs. 2,42,918-47P, under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, vide his order dated 16.7.1990. The petitioner being aggrieved against the said orders, filed an appeal on 17th October, 1990 and subsequently a waiver and stay applications dated 8th January, 1991. The appeal was preferred under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 2nd July, 1991 partly waived the amount in question directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the demand of duty within eight weeks of the receipt of the Tribunal's order. The petitioner, still aggrieved against the same has filed the present writ petition, seeking total waiver of the amount in question.
(3.) The petitioner has averred and stated that it has specifically mentioned in the stay application and the waiver application moved before the Appellate Tribunal, and also raised the question that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was not maintainable as the Assistant Collector was not competent to issue the same under Section 11-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, when extended period of limitation had been invoked. The contention of the petitioner is that it is only the Collector and not the Additional Collector, who is empowered to issue such a notice and the impugned show cause notice was barred by time.;