I.J. Rao, Member (T)

1. This is a revision application filed before the Central Government, which, under section 35P(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, stands transferred to the Tribunal to be disposed of as if it were an appeal presented before the Tribunal.

2. In this appeal the appellants challenged the validity of the impugned order of the Collector on four main grounds : -

(i) The Show Cause Notice was issued by the Collector on 7-6-80 whereas the order sought to be reviewed therein was passed by the Assistant Collector on 21-7-79. Therefore, the show cause notice was barred under section 35A(3)(b) ;

(ii) The show cause notice is vague as no amount was mentioned therein in accordance with Rule 10 of section 11 A. The show cause notice was invalid on this ground also in view of the case law in the matter of J.B. A. Printing Inks Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1980 E.L.T. 121 (Bom.) ;

(iii) There was denial of natural justice by the Collector while passing the impugned order as he ignored the case law cited by the appellants ;

(iv) The impugned order is contrary to the Trade Notice No. 128 (M.P.) All Goods (NES)/75.

3. With reference to the ground (i) the appellants submitted that section 11A referred to in section 35A(3)(b) of the Central Excise Act came into effect on 17-11-1980 but their reference to that in section 35A(3)(b) is merely for computation of time limit and therefore legally effective. They further submitted that section 35A(4) on which the Collector relied is not applicable to the present case as section 35A(3)(b) is specifically applicable whereas section 35A(4) is general in nature. A specific law prevails over general law and the time limit specified in section 11A and referred to in section 35A(3)(b) is to be taken into account and not the time limit under section 35A(4). In support of this argument the appellants cited the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1981 E.L.T. 421 (Del.).

4. The appellants cited other case law in support of their argument that their products were covered by Notification No. 119/75-CE. This case law consisted of a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in the matter of Associated Pigments Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and Ors. reported in 1983 E.L.T. 876 (Cal.).

5. Opposing the argument the learned representative for the department submitted that section 11A was not made operative at the material time. Therefore, the time limit mentioned therein could not be made applicable for the purposes of section 35A(3)(b). Further, the show cause notice was issued under section 35A(2) seeking to review the order of the Assistant Collector and therefore the time limit was 12 months from the date of the said order as provided under section 35A(4) and was therefore within time. He further submitted that proviso to rule 10 allowing 5 years limit for issue of show cause notice to come into play. In this matter as the appellants failed to declare the value of raw materials thereby being guilty of mis-statement and suppression of facts. Regarding the charge that the show cause notice was vague the learned representative submitted that there was no such vagueness and the show cause notice gave all relevant particulars. He also cited an order of the Tribunal in Appeal No. ED(SB)(T)329/80-B in the matter of M/s. Orissa Construction Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar reported in 1983 ELT 2382 (CEGAT) and argued that the appellants made vessels etc. and there is a change in the article and therefore they are not entitled to the concession under Notification No. 119/75-CE as there is manufacture.

6. In reply the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case law cited on behalf of the respondent (1983 ECR 1053-D) has no application here as the facts are not similar. In the instant matter there is no allegation that any different produc