9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondent. [Order per: G. Sankaran, President]. - By the impugned order, the Collector of Central Excise, Nagpur, confirmed a demand amounting to Rs. 9,41,179.95 against the appellants under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, read with the proviso thereto. 2. A brief background will help to better understand the case. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Vanas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this delay and the fact that they did not apply for relaxation of the one month time-limit, the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a notice on 24-9-1984 to the appellants to show cause why the duty benefit availed of by them during February and March, 1984, should not be disallowed and the amount recovered from them. The Assistant Collector, on adjudication, accepted the appellants' contenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter. Thus, in passing the order dated 9-12-1986, the Assistant Collector, according to the Collector, acted beyond his jurisdication and the order was consequently null and void. Accordingly, the Collector issued on 15-6-1989 a memorandum to the appellants re-opening the proceedings for adjudication in exercise of his (purported) powers under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d have transferred the proceedings to the Collector for adjudication. But the question is whether the Collector in exercising his purported powers under the amended Section 11A of the Act was acting within jurisdiction. The Assistant Collector's order dated 9-12-1986 was undoubtedly an illegal order. But, right or wrong, it was an order passed by an officer of Central Excise and it could have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
