2006 (12) TMI 380 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved: Appeal against OIA confirming OIO, jurisdiction of Show Cause Notice, time-barred demands, judicial indiscipline by Commissioner (Appeals).

Jurisdiction of Show Cause Notice:
The appeal arose from the OIA confirming the OIO passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise. The Tribunal remanded the matter for de novo consideration, allowing all issues to be raised by the assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demands despite the plea that the Show Cause Notice extending a larger period was time-barred and lacked approval from the Commissioner. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not considering the time-barred nature of the Show Cause Notice, as per the Apex Court judgment in the case of Nizam Sugars. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to follow Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court judgments, leading to judicial indiscipline.

Time-Barred Demands:
The Commissioner (Appeals) did not set aside the demands despite the Show Cause Notice being without jurisdiction due to lack of permission from the Commissioner. The earlier proceedings had dropped the demands in 2000, acknowledging the belated issuance of the Show Cause Notice. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the demands were time-barred as per the Nizam Sugars judgment. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Judicial Indiscipline by Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for not applying the Apex Court judgment and for disregarding Tribunal rulings and Supreme Court judgments. Despite the lack of jurisdiction in the Show Cause Notice, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to set aside the demands. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following legal precedents and directed a copy of the order to be sent to the Commissioner (Appeals) for his attention.