TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 865X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice dated 20th February, 2008 against M/s. Garg Industries and all other concerned parties, we find no lawful authority for passing a fresh adjudication order viz. the impugned order - there is no power, authority or jurisdiction consecrated under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1944, enabling withdrawal of an adjudication order; and that no power inheres in the adjudicating authority to review its own order, either. It is also not clear from the record as to which authority withdrew the order dated 30-3-2009 and in exercise of what power. We are also unable at this stage, to conclude that the order of withdrawal of the earlier adjudication order is non est, since the factum of such withdrawal is incorporated in the Supreme Court’s order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how cause notice was issued on 20th February, 2008 only to M/s. Garg Industries, Shri B.M. Garg and Shri Krishna Kumar. Eventually an adjudication order dated 30th March, 2009 was passed assessing duty demand on Garg Industries and penalties on others including persons who were not afforded the due process of notice and opportunity, to participate in the proceedings. 3. The other appellants (A-2 to A-7), aggrieved by the adjudication order dated 30th March, 2009 preferred a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court, which was rejected by the order dated 17-12-2009. There against those parties preferred special leave petition before the Supreme Court. On 18-8-2011, before the Supreme Court, on behalf of Revenue a letter dated 18-8-201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts has contended, and in our prima facie view rightly, that there is no power, authority or jurisdiction consecrated under the provisions of the Excise Act, 1944, enabling withdrawal of an adjudication order; and that no power inheres in the adjudicating authority to review its own order, either. It is also not clear from the record as to which authority withdrew the order dated 30-3-2009 and in exercise of what power. We are also unable at this stage, to conclude that the order of withdrawal of the earlier adjudication order is non est, since the factum of such withdrawal is incorporated in the Supreme Court s order dated 19-8-2011. 7. On the aforesaid analysis, the impugned adjudication order, prima facie appears unsustainable. We ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
