TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andestinely removed goods and accordingly, demanded duty amounting to Rs. 31,31,616.11 under Section 11A of the Act. Director who adjudicated the proceedings observed that appellants have clandestinely removed from their factory 1445 rolls of Coated Cotton Fabrics valued at Rs. 4,33,500/- without payment of Central Excise duty and accordingly, he demanded duty of Rs. 1,64,730/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellants under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. 3. Smt. Archana Wadhwa, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellants, raised a preliminary objection on the point of jurisdiction stating tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted connected with the Anti-evasion department. In reply, Smt. Archana Wadhwa submitted that when once notice was issued by the Officer as Deputy Director, Anti-evasion, it is not for her to show that whether that Officer is invested with other powers other than the powers of Deputy Director, Anti-evasion and it is for the Department to show that he was vested with such other powers also which has not been done in this case. She said that all these points were considered in the aforesaid case and after taking into consideration of the several Notifications held that Director, Anti-evasion was not appointed as Collector of Central Excise and was not invested with powers of Collector of Central Excise. Subsequently, C.B.E.C. issued notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essary and that it should be ignored. But this argument is not correct because if he was appointed as an officer in Directorate of Anti-Evasion, then in light of the above discussion, he was not appointed as a Central Excise Officer and so he could not have exercised such powers vested in a Central Excise Officer. The ld. Advocate has produced copies of several notifications whereby various officers have been appointed either in the Directorate of A.E. or DRI and thereby they have been appointed in that particular Directorate only. 21. So, it can be seen from these appointments that the Directorates of A.E. and DRI were treated as separate entities and officers were appointed separately in both the Directorates and they were appointed in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
