9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (6) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, J.D.R., for the Respondent. [Order per : K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)]. - The prayer in this application is for dispensation with the pre-deposit of Rs. 4,00,551.50 ps. the duty demanded and Rs. 1,00,000/- the penalty imposed on the applicants. Appearing for the applicants Shri Hidayuttallah firstly urged that the show cause notice in this case was issued by the Assistant Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his contention he relied on the decision of the South Regional Bench reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 487 = 1987 (9) E.T.R. 256 in the case of Mysore Prefabs and Prefabs India v. Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore. Shri Hidayuttallah further canvassed that there had been a denial of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the request of the applicants for cross-examination of the witnesses have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng for the Collector while admitting that the Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction or power to issue show cause notice in question contended that this issue had not been taken before the Collector and if it had been taken, the Collector would have given reasons. 3. We have considered the submissions made on both the sides. We are unable to agree with the contention of Shri Hidayuttallah that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it. Having regard to the limited scope and power conferred on the Regional Special Benches we are not inclined to grant the relief sought by Shri Hidayuttallah as to the setting aside of the impugned order. 4. Undisputedly, from 28-12-1985 the power to issue show cause notices in respect Of recoveries falling under the proviso to Section 11 A vests with the Collector and the Collector alone. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending before the Tribunal the Central Excise Officers have chosen to detain the goods as a result the functioning of the factory had stopped. If the applicant had brought to the notice of the Central Excise Officers regarding the pendency of the stay application in fairness the Central Excise Officers should not have proceeded to detain the goods. The conduct appears reprehensible. This aspect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
