2010 (4) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt, affect the petitioners in any way.
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 26.04.2010 W.P.(C) 1677/2010 S.C.RAHI versus UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner: Mr C. Hari Shankar with Mr S. Sunil For the Respondent No.1: Mr Asit Tiwari For the Respondents 2 & 3: Mr Mukesh Anand with Mr R. C. S. Bhadoria, Mr Shailesh Tiwari and Mr Sumit Batra AND WP(C) 1112/2010 & WP(C) 2303/2010 S. L. BANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Advocates who appeared in this case:- For the Petitioner: Mr Tarun Gulati with Mr Neil Hilderth For the Respondent No.1: Mr Roshan Lal Goel For the Respondents 2 & 3: Mr Mukesh Anand with Mr R. C. S. Bhadoria, Mr Shailesh Tiwari and Mr Sumit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited. 3. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) by separate orders-in-original passed on 30.10.2006. 4. Thereafter, the exporters, namely, Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited as well as several other exporters filed appeals before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in respect of the said orders-in-original. The revenue, however, did not file any appeal in respect of the orders-in-original pertaining to Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited. There were allegations against both the officials, namely, Mr S. C. Rahi and Mr S. L. Bansal in the show cause notices issued to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed on Mr S. C. Rahi and a penalty of Rs 2 lacs, in two of the cases, was imposed on Mr S. L. Bansal. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that there was no matter pending before the Tribunal pertaining to the present petitioners when the order of remand was made. Therefore, there was no question of their case being re-considered by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), when he conducted his de novo adjudication. Consequently, no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submit that the department had accepted the finding of the Commissioner of Central Excise in the first round whereby both the petitioners had been exonerated. The department had consciously decided not t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X