ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. There is no respresentation nor request for adjournment. We have heard Shri M. Ali, JDR and perused the papers.
2. In respect of 85 price lists filed during the period 10-9-1980 to 17-3-1983, the jurisdictional Superintendent issued notice to the appellant proposing to add to the assessable value claimed in the price lists excess amount realised in the garb of Central Excise duty over and above what was paid at the time of removal, certain post manufacturing expenses, delivery charges and certain other charges. Though the appellant resisted the notice, the original order confirmed the proposal. The present respondent challenged this order before the Collector (Appeals) who treated the original order as an order confirming demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, found the show cause notice under Section 11A to be barred by time and on that account set aside the original order. Department, being aggrieved, has filed the present appeal.
3. Appended to the original order is an annexure containing price lists and the dates of filing the price lists. The earliest price list was 6/80, dated 10-9-1980. Show cause notice dated 10-9-1980, was issued proposing demand of differential duty of Rs. 34,132.93 in respect of the period governed by price list No. 6/80. Price lists had been provisionally approved on execution of B-13 Bond. Another show cause notice dated 6-12-1989, was issued in respect of all the 85 price lists including price list 6/80. The notice required the respondent to show cause against addition of certain amounts to the assessable value claimed in the price lists and why on account of such modification duty should not be recoverable under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. There was no annexure to the show cause notice and no specific amount was demanded. As we understand, show cause notice dated 6-12-1989 had only proposed the addition of certain elements to the assessable value as claimed in the price lists, though incidentally referring to Section 11A of the Act. It is therefore not possible to read this as a notice under Section 11A of the Act. It was a notice dealing with price lists only and as such not governed by the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In any view of the case, since all the price lists had been approved provisionally on execution of B-13 Bond even if the notice is to be regarded as notice proposing demand, limitation under Section 11A of the Act cannot be attracted.
4. For the above reasons, we set aside the Order-in-Appeal dated 9-9-1990 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Calcutta and remand the appeal to the jurisdictional Commissioner (Appeals) for decision of the appeal on merits after giving the respondent an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. Appeal is allowed accordingly.