9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de order dated 15-11-2000? (b) Whether by the final order No. 513/2000-C, dated 15-11-2000, in Appeal No. E/4576/83-C, the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi remanded the case back for being adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority or there was no remand of the case while deciding the said appeal? (c) Whether the majority decision in appeal No. E/1277/2005 that the Commissioner of Central Excide had jurisdiction to decide the Show Cause Notices issued to the appellant in this case is correct and sustainable in facts of this case?" 2.0 Present appeal has a chequered history and is a glaring example of delaying the adjudication of the show cause notices at the instance of the appellant and not permitting the appropriate authority to adjudicate the show cause notices and to pass the order on merits. 3.0 Facts leading to the present Tax Appeal in nutshell are as under : 3.1 That four show cause notices were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Valsad and OIO No. BLS/89/91, dated 30-12-1991 came to be passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division Valsad on the said four show cause notices as under : Sr. No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise took up the adjudication of the aforesaid show cause notices along with other show cause notices. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 11796/2002 before this Court. Initially, this Court issued notice and passed the following interim order. "Notice returnable on 23rd December, 2002. Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel Shri D.N. Patel waives service of notice for respondent no. 1. The petitioners shall give reply to the show cause notices in the meantime, and the concerned authority shall also consider the contents of this petition during pendency of the petition. The concerned authority shall not pass any order adverse to the petitioners in the meantime. If the authority is satisfied that the notices are bad in law, it would be open to him to take appropriate action. Direct service is permitted so far as other respondents are concerned." That thereafter the aforesaid special civil application came to be disposed of as withdrawn by the Division Bench by the order dated 30-10-2004 on the statement made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that they shall remain present before t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly allowed the appellant-company's appeal whereas the Member (Technical) held that the matter should be heard by the competent authority-Commissioner. Therefore, a difference in opinion arose between the members of the Bench. Therefore, the matter was referred to the 3rd member who by impugned order has concurred with the view expressed by the Member (Technical) and a final order dated 23-1-2013 has been passed by the Appellate Tribunal holding that the issue of jurisdiction stood decided against the appellant company and it is held that the Commissioner is competent to adjudicate the show cause notices. 3.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the appeal and holding that the Commissioner would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the aforesaid show cause notices, the appellant preferred one another petition being Special Civil Application No. 7501/2013 before this Court, which ultimately came to be withdrawn by the appellant for filing the Tax Appeal. That thereafter the appellant has preferred the present Tax Appeal with the following proposed substantial questions of law. "12(a) Whether Show Caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Vadodara-II v. Rajputana Steel Casting P. Ltd. reported in 2010 (257) E.L.T. 343 (Guj.). It is submitted that by the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench has confirmed the order passed by the learned Tribunal in similar set of circumstances and held that unless and until there is a direction issued by the Tribunal specifically empowering the adjudicating authority for passing de novo order, the adjudicating authority has no jurisdiction for passing de novo order. It is submitted that therefore, when by passing the judgment and order dated 15-11-2000 by the learned Tribunal disposing of the appeal against the OIO and when there was no specific direction for de novo adjudication, thereafter it is not open for the Commissioner to adjudicate the show cause notices and/or for passing the de novo order. It is submitted that therefore the Member (Judicial) rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the appellant. 4.3 Shri Gupta, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has also heavily relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. V.K. Palappa Nadar reported in 2000 (123) E.L.T. 14 (M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that thereafter when the adjudicating authority was to proceed further with the hearing of the show cause notices and adjudication, again the appellants approached the Appellate Tribunal and by impugned judgment and order the learned Appellate Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the adjudicating proceedings are rightly initiated by the competent adjudicating authority. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajputana Steel Casting P. Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable. It is submitted that in the present case, earlier the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal against the OIO specifically observed that the matter could be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority and with the said observations, the appeal came to be disposed of. It is submitted that therefore the adjudication by the competent adjudicating authority has been permitted. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present appeal. 6. Heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of respective partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Commissioner of Central Excise, who is a competent adjudicating authority, took up the adjudication of the aforesaid show cause notices along with the other show cause notices. At that stage the appellant preferred Special Civil Application No. 11796/2002 before this Court which subsequently came to be disposed of as withdrawn on the statement made by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants that they shall remain present before the concerned authority and thereafter Commissioner may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6.4 It appears that thereafter the appellant and/or their representatives appeared before the Commissioner of Central Excise, Division Valsad and challenged the jurisdiction of the Commissioner to adjudicate the show cause notices by submitting that in view of the earlier order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal dated 15-11-2000 quashing and setting aside the OIO/OIA and as there was no specific order of remand, it is not open for the Commissioner to adjudicate the show cause notices. It appears that Commissioner vide its decision dated 9-2-2005 held that he is competent to adjudicate the case and he has jurisdiction t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ggests that the Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the matter is to be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority. Under the circumstances, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajputana Steel Casting P. Ltd. (supra) upon which the reliance has been placed heavily by the appellant would not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and the same shall not be of any assistance to the appellant. 7.0 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal [majority decision]. No error has been committed by the learned Appellate Tribunal which calls for interference of this Court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. Hence, present tax appeal deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the show cause notices are of the year 1991 and still they are not permitted to be adjudicated and are still pending, the adjudicating authority is hereby directed to adjudicate the show cause notices and pass the final orders on the same in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
