ORDER
D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. We have heard Shri Dushyant Dave, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. V. Zutshi, learned S.D.R. for the Revenue. Shri Dave has argued that in this case show cause notice demanding duty was issued on 22-1-1987 and the period covered by the show cause notice was for 5-7-1986 to 10-9-1986. In the show cause notice, suppression and mis-statement of facts were alleged and proviso to Section 11A(1) of Central Excises and Salt Act was invoked for extending the period of limitation beyond six months. He has argued that according to proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act as amended from 27-12-1985, a show cause notice issued after December, 1985 demanding duty for a longer period beyond six months under the proviso to Section 11A was to be issued by the Collector. In this case, the show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings pursuant thereto are not according to law. As a result, the show cause notice and also the proceedings relating thereto should be quashed. In support of this argument, learned Advocate has relied on the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd. and Another v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1988 (34) E.L.T. 442 (Gujarat).
2. Arguing for the Revenue, Smt. Zutshi has relied on the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Han/ana State Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 81 (Tribunal) and has pleaded for the remand of the matter.
3. We have considered the arguments of both sides. As show cause notice was issued invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as amended with effect from 27-12-1985, the Show Cause Notice was required to be issued by the Collector of Central Excise and not by the Superintendent of Central Excise. In this case, show cause notice was issued on 22-1-1987 by the Superintendent of Central Excise demanding central excise duty for the period from 5-7-1986 to 10-9-1986. The show cause notice is not, therefore, according to the provisions of law. Following the judgment of Gujarat High Court relied on by the learned advocate, this show cause notice and the subsequent proceedings relating thereto are required to be set aside. We order accordingly.
4. The decision of this Tribunal reported in 1988 (37) E.L.T. 81 in the case of Haryana Slate Electricity Board v. Collector of Central Excise, as relied on by the learned S.D.R. is of no help to the Revenue. In paragraph 4 of the said decision, the Tribunal held that it was only on or after 22-12-1985 (the correct date is 27-12-1985) that notice ought to be issued by the Collector himself in cases where the longer period of limitation was to be pressed into service. In the present case, longer period of limitation has been invoked in issuing the show cause notice alleging suppression and mis-statement of facts. The appellants are not precluded from raising this point before us as this is purely a point of law.
5. The show cause notice and the impugned order are set aside and the appeal allowed.