TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Finished) Violet Wove Paper in their factory. During the course of verification of stock and accounts by the Central Excise Staff on 8-12-1980, the officers found 4 rolls of M.F. Violet Wove Paper in the finishing room but the stock card showed Nil stock on that date. The officers seized the said four rolls since they were not accounted for in the R.G. 1 record as required under Central Excise Rules and as it also appeared that the said paper would be correctly classifiable under Item No. 17(2), C.E.T. as it stood then, whereas the assessees had declared the Violet Wove Paper as writing and printing paper under Tariff Item No. 17(1) of the Central Excise Tariff. 3. Show cause notice was served upon the assessees asking them to show caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Paper cleared during November 1978 to November 1980 and ₹ 1,995.77 due in respect of 10.499 tonnes of M.F. Violet Wove Paper cleared during March, 1980 by M/s. Pondicherry Papers Limited and confiscated 197 Kgs. of paper and ordered it to be released on payment of a fine of ₹ 100 alongwith the confiscation of other lots seized. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on M/s. Pondiherry Papers Limited. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, M/s. Pondicherry Papers Limited and M/s. Krupakar Paper Mart filed an appeal to the Central Board of Excise Customs, New Delhi who in their order-in-appeal No. 248-249 of 1982 dated 7-8-1982 held that going by the ISI specification for Match paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) E.L.T. 275] in support of his contention that the expression any person aggrieved appearing in Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 does not take within its ambit the revenue or the Collector and refers only to the assessee or other persons other than the revenue. He argued that the scope of the provision of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 cannot be extended for making the Collector of Central Excise and Customs competent to file appeals against the orders of the Central Board of Excise Customs. The Board is an authority superior to the Collector and, therefore, it is unthinkable that a right to appeal is conferred on the Collector against the decision or the order by the Board. According to him, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such orders. According to him, an order passed by the Board can be challenged in appeal before the Tribunal under the provisions of this Section. The Collector of Central Excise comes within the purview of any person aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Board of Excise Customs and, therefore, this appeal filed by him is maintainable. He further argued that the ratio of the decision of the West Regional Bench of Bombay reported in 1984 E.L.T. 275 does not apply in this case because in that case the Collector of Customs had not obtained the prior sanction of the Board before filing the appeal but in this case the sanction from the Board had already been obtained before filing this appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tra v. M.V. Dabholkar (AIR 1975 S.C. 2097) and the decision of the Special Bench C of the CEGAT in the case of M/s. Kota Box Manufacturing Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur [Order No. 22 of 1983 (Misc.) dated 21-12-1983] while interpreting the words any person . He further argued that the constitution of a three member Bench to decide a matter of a Regional Bench is in violation of the provisions of Section 129C (2 3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the decision given by such an illegally constituted Bench cannot create a precedent to be followed in a later decision by this Tribunal. 13. The entire case hinges upon the interpretation of the words any person aggrieved as mentioned in Section 35B of the Central Excises and Sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ords any person aggrieved in the present decision seems to be in direct conflict with the earlier decision of this very Special Bench C in the case of Kota Box Manufacturing Company v. Collector of Central Excise, as cited by the learned Counsel of the Appellant. The present Bench seems to have preferred to follow the decision of Western Regional Bench over and above its own decision in Kota Box s case as no distinguishing feature has been recorded or discussed in this respect. It is felt that in the matter of precedence the Bench at the first instance has to follow its own earlier decision unless the view propounded by other Benches was of larger number of Members. The plea of the Appellant s Counsel that since the Western Regional Ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
