Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2003 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (4) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURTWhether, on 14th July, 1995, there is an order of adjudication? - Held that:- The High Court, in the impugned judgment, has held that the demand made earlier is confirmed and therefore there is an adjudication. We are in agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. The order dated 14th July, 1995 makes it clear that a personal hearing was given on 22nd June, 1995. It sets out what has already been paid. Then it calls upon the appellants to pay the balance amount. Thus, there has been adjudication and there is a demand. It may be that this order is not in the format prescribed. It may also be that principles of natural justice were not followed but those are grounds on which the order could have been challenged. In fact, these grounds were taken in the writ petition. However, those grounds were not pressed. We have, therefore, not looked into these aspects and express no opinion thereon. Whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme? - Held that:- Section 95 of the Scheme makes it clear that in cases where no appeal or reference or writ petition is admitted or pending before the Appellate Court or the High Court or the Supreme Court and where no application for revision is made before the Central Government, the Scheme is not to apply. In this case, admittedly, on the due date i.e. 31st March, 1998 there was no pending appeal, reference or writ petition or application. Under these circumstances, the declaration was correctly rejected. Appeal dismissed.
|