9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the appellant. Against the penalty imposed on the appellant, on an appeal filed by the appellant, the Tribunal vide order No. 21-23/2001-D dated 02.01.2001 reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. Appeal filed by the manufacturing Company before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the confirmation of demand and penalty was dismissed. Thereafter, in January 1996, a criminal case was lodged by the Revenue against the appellant Company, the Managing Director and the appellant. The criminal case is still pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehasana. After the order was passed by the Tribunal, the appellant also filed an application for rectification of mistake on 28.02.2002 and according to the submission in the hearing the ROM applicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssed by Chief Commissioner. Further, he also submits that as per the circular issued by the Board No. 29/2009-Cus dated 15.10.2009, the cases where the Chief Commissioner is not inclined to accede to appellant s request for compounding, it has to be rejected duly informing the grounds and after following the principles of natural justice. He submits that the instructions issued by the Board in the above circular would clearly show that that the Chief Commissioner exercises quasi judicial authority when he passes the order and therefore, it cannot be called an administrative decision. 4. According to Section 35B of Central Excise Act, 1944, any person aggrieved by any of the orders passed/decisions may appeal to the Tribunal. The ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief Commissioner when the Tribunal is accorded a higher status and power to hear appeals against the Board s Orders under the statute. 5. Further, in the case of Videocon Industries Limited 2009 (248) ELT 334 (Tri. Mumbai) also it was held that appeal against order of the Chief Commissioner lies before the Tribunal. 6. It was also submitted that unlike CHA License Regulation, wherein specifically it has been provided that customers being aggrieved by any decision or order passed can appeal to Tribunal, there is no provision in the Act and therefore, appeal cannot be filed. Further learned AR could not show any decision taking a stand contrary to the decisions cited by the learned counsel to support his submissions that this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant did not mention details of miscellaneous application filed for rectification of mistake before the Tribunal against final order and he had also not mentioned the reasons for making the payment of reduced penalty under protest. 10. The Chief Commissioner has also recorded that during the personal hearing, the appellant has stated that he was acting as per the directions of Managing Director and he submitted reply to the show cause notice as per the direction given by the Managing Director of the firm. The learned counsel submitted that it cannot be said that there was any contradiction or suppression of fact while submitting the application. Copy of the show cause notice and copy of the statement and relevant records had been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned to ROM application. 12. Reliance was placed on several decisions to submit that such contradictions or omissions should not come in the way of considering the application. 13. In the case of Raghbir Singh vs. Municipal Board of Hardwar Union, Hardwar AIR 1956 Allahabad 324, the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad held that what is to be seen is whether the omission of fact is material or not; the omission to mention a particular fact does not necessarily disentitle the petitioner to get a relief under article 226 unless the fact which has been omitted to be mentioned is material to the relief claimed by the applicant. 14. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Sheo Karan and Ors vs. State of Rajasthan AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompounding of offence takes place, the penalty imposed is liable to be paid and the basic principle while filing application for compounding of offence is that the offence is admitted. Therefore, what is material here is that there should not be any denial of the offence or any effort to show that the appellant was not guilty or offence was not grave. Just because the appellant took a different ground in reply to show cause notice while making the application, it cannot be said that he has failed to disclose the material facts. At the time of giving statement and at the time of replying to the show cause notice, it has to be remembered that the appellant was working with the Company and therefore, was working under the directions of same Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
