Debangsu Basak, J. - (1.) The Court: A show-cause cum demand notice dated September 11, 2013 and the consequential Order in Original dated August 30, 2018 are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) According to the petitioner, the impugned show cause cum demand notice as also the Order in Original suffers from lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner contends that, the show cause cum demand notice was issued in respect of transactions had for the year 2009-11. The show-cause cum demand notice is dated September 11, 2013. It is beyond the period of limitation of one year prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. For the authorities to invoke the provisions of Section 11A(4) of the Act of 1944, the essential ingredients in respect thereto must be present. In the present case none of them are present. The claim being barred by limitation, the assumption of jurisdiction by the authorities in issuing the show-cause cum demand notice and the consequent order in original is without jurisdiction. He refers to page 277 of the writ petition and submits that, grounds (iii), (iv) and (ix) at such pages were not considered and decided in the order in original.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, although the petitioner claimed to be a manufacturer and obtained registration for the same, the adjudicating authority found the petitioner to be a trader. Therefore, according to him the petitioner does not come within the purview of the Central Excise Act, 1944. No liability can be fastened upon the petitioner under the provisions of the Act 1944. The entire exercise of issuing the show cause cum demand notice and Order in Original is without jurisdiction.;