Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) I have been invited to intervene in a proceeding pursuant to a notice to show cause issued on 27th September 1985 issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, against Vishwa Industrial Company Private Limited, the petitioner herein. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner assembled haulages and conveyors in the premises of the buyers. The assembly Is of components which are manufactured and on which excise duty is paid. At the time of erection and/or installation of haulages and con- veyors civil construction work is required to be carried out. Haulages and conveyors are part of immovable properties erected at sites. These cannot be regarded as "goods" on which any duty of excise can be levied. The Excise Authority has taken a contrary view and a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 16.5.1981 alleging that ap- propriate Central Excise Duty has not been paid by the petitioner and this was due to non- submission of relevant C.A. Certificates, Invoices, etc. The petitioner was required to show cause as to why the amount of short-levy should not be demanded and paid by the petitioner on the value after increasing by 20% of the value shown in the monthly R.T.-12 Returns submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner appeared pursuant to the show cause notice and in course of hearing the petitioner felt aggrieved and has moved this writ peti- tion. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have declined to give par- ticulars on the basis of which it has calculated the short-levy. The petitioner has further alleged that the entire proceeding is barred by limitation. My attention was invited to the case of S.S. Gadgil v. Lal & Company, 53 l.T.R. 231 and it was submitted that in a case like this the Court should intervene even though a question of limitation was involved. The petitioners' case is that the period of limitation is only for six months in a case like this. I see no reason to intervene in the proceeding pursuant to the show cause notice. The question whether the petitioner was assembling haulages and conveyors and not manufacturing any "goods" is essentially a question of fact. Moreover, Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act requires proceedings to be commenced within six months from the date of shortlevy. But it is also provided that if the shortlevy is due to reasons of fraud, collusion or any wilful misstatement or suppression of facts, etc., the period of limitation would be five years.
(2.) I am not deciding the questions that have been raised finally. All those questions will have to be gone into and decided by the statutory authority.
(3.) The petitioners have also made a grievance about the non-supply of the particulars on the basis of which the claim has been made against the petitioners.;