TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner has issued notices, however, as per the details, no specific decision has been reached and the order is in clear violation of Circular No. 21/95-Cus dated 10.03.1995 - also, two different officers have passed the adjudication order. One has passed without considering the defense submission given by the appellant and the second order has been passed after considering the defense submissions made by the appellant. Under no circumstances, both the orders passed by different officer could have been same and it clearly shows non application of mind and failure to consider the grounds of defense raised by the appellant. Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction is a legal ground and can be invoked at any time. The order is passed withou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he findings in the impugned order from Para 12 to 19 is identical to Para 10 to 17 of the earlier order of the Commissioner which was set-aside by the Tribunal. He took us through both the orders and pointed out that, findings in both the orders are verbatim same including the commas and full-stops. He argued that while the earlier order had not considered the defense submissions and in this order while the Commissioner records that the appellant have filed the defense submissions still the order passed is exactly identical to the order passed earlier by a different Commissioner. He argued that the order has been passed without application of mind as the different Adjudicating Authority cannot pass orders which are verbatim same (including ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Under Notification No. 11/2007-CE, the CBEC had delegated the power under sub-Rule 2 of Rule 3 to the Chief Commissioners of Central Excise for the purposes of the Act to appoint Central Excise officers to adjudicate the show cause notice under the Central Excise Act. He argued that in terms of Rule 3(2), the said nomination of Adjudicating Authority can only be appointed by issuing notification duly published in Gazzette as defined in Rule 2(f) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. He argued that such appointment of Central Excise officers cannot be done by issuing simply a letter. For this assertion, ld. Counsel relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of UOI vs. Kothari Products Limited 2012 (278) ELT 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar violation of Circular No. 21/95-Cus dated 10.03.1995, which is as follows:- 3. Normally the customs authorities should immediately inform the Development Commissioner in case a 100% ECU ceases production prematurely or fails to commence production or export within the stipulated period. In case the Development Commissioner initiates action against the unit for non- fulfillment of export obligation etc. simultaneously the customs authorities should issue show cause notice for failure to comply which conditions of Notification 13/81-Cus., dated 09.02.1981. The demand of duty should be confirmed only after a definite conclusion has been arrived at by the Development Commissioner. 5.1 We also find that two different officers h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
