COLLECTOR OF C EX Vs. GHATAPRABHA PAPER BOARD MILLS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, and is directed against the impugned order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 22-5-1987. The respondents are absent and there is no request for adjournment. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the appeal after hearing the learned S.D.R. and considering the pleas urged by the respondents in the Memorandum of Cross-Objection and with reference to other available records.

(2.) The respondent is manufacturing paper and paper board falling under the erstwhile Tariff Item No. 17(1) and during 26-7-1984 to 31-12-1984 the respondents had manufactured and cleared 80.154 MT of mill board using sludge procured from outside along with their own waste paper and was availing of Notification 45/83, dated 1-3-1983. On the basis of audit objection, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Belgaum Division No. 43 issued show cause notice that the respondents were ineligible for the concessional rate of duty and, called upon them to show cause, as to why differential duty of Rs. 64,014,57 for the said period should not be levied. The show cause notice culminated in the order of adjudication passed by the Assistant Collector, which was challenged in appeal before the lower appellate authority who under the impugned order held that inasmuch as longer period of limitation in terms of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 had been invoked after 27-12-1985 the Assistant Collector would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate such cases and the proper authority to adjudicate the same is Collector of Central Excise. In this view of the matter, under the impugned order, the respondents' appeal was allowed and the order of the original authority was set aside against which the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum has come in appeal before this Tribunal.

(3.) IN the cross-objection, the respondents have stated that the impugned order does not call for any interference at the hands of the Tribunal, since there is no allegation of suppression. The show cause notice is "void" and "cannot be maintained". The respondents have further pleaded that de novo proceedings is not sustainable since the Collector has already formed an adverse presumption against the respondents by filing appeal before the Tribunal.