TMI Blog1989 (2) TMI 290X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 000/- imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. 2. When Shri Alimchandani, the learned Consultant for the appellant, initially started making submissions, I wanted him to clarify a doubt which I entertained while going through the papers before me. I questioned the learned Consultant as to how the present appeal is competent against an order forfeiting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in enforcing a clause in the B-11 Bond which was executed by the appellant at the time when the goods were provisionally released, pending adjudication. Attention of the learned Consultant was also drawn to similar questions having been settled by the Tribunal in which a consistent view had been taken that forfeiture of a sum specified in a Bond executed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es not include u\c. Central Board of Excise and Customs, Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) or Appellate Tribunal. Section 33 of the Act in express terms provides that where by the rules made under the Central Excises and Salt Act anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged by the officers specified therein. There is, therefore, in clear terms, a duty by the specified officers under the Act to adjudge cases of confiscations and penalties by a judicial process and the function is a quasi-judicial function subject to the principles of natural justice. Adjudicate means to hear or try and decide judicially. The word adjudication is defined as giving or pronouncing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uted by the appellant and forfeit the named sum of Rs. 50.000/- specified in the Bond. This forfeiture would not constitute an order of adjudication at all because this is not any penalty imposed for any breach of the Act or Rule nor any fine in lieu of confiscation, nor an amount of duty. I, therefore, hold that this part of the impugned order appropriating Rs. 50,000/- is not adjudicatory in character coming within the mischief of Section 35B of the Act. I, therefore, hold that this part of the impugned order is not appealable. At this stage Shri Alimchandani, the learned Consultant, submitted that on broad considerations of justice and equity the Tribunal, while in seisin of this appeal, could go into the question. I am afraid I cannot a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
