Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2001 (7) TMI HC This
Issues:
1. Challenge to order dated 13-5-1991 passed by the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Bhopal. 2. Non-communication of the order to the petitioner affecting the appeal process. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order dated 13-5-1991, which demanded excise duty amounting to Rs. 12,84,678.78 from the company. The order was based on the classification of 'Dant Manjan Lal' under Chapter Heading 33.06 by the Hon'ble CEGAT, overturning the Collector (Appeals) order. The petitioner contended that since CEGAT had not granted a stay in the appeal filed by the Collector, the original order-in-appeal was still in operation, allowing them to clear the goods at a nil rate of duty. However, the Assistant Collector upheld the demand for excise duty, citing the decision by CEGAT as the basis for the order. The petitioner argued that the order was not communicated to them, hindering their right to appeal. 2. In response to the petitioner's claim of non-communication of the order, the Department asserted that the order had been served but could not produce the postal acknowledgment as proof. Considering this discrepancy and to ensure justice, the High Court remanded the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to argue that a Circular dated 25-9-1991, if deemed retrospective, could benefit them. The adjudicating authority was instructed to consider this argument along with any other issues raised and provide a reasoned decision. 3. To expedite the process, the High Court directed the petitioner to appear before the adjudicating authority on 16-8-2001, with the entire re-adjudication process to be completed by 15-9-2001. Consequently, the original order demanding excise duty was quashed, and the writ petition was disposed of, allowing for a fresh examination of the matter to address the concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the communication of the order and the applicability of the circular in their favor.
|