9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, in any event, affect the petitioner in any way. The petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) in the course of the de novo proceedings that no proceedings could be taken up against the petitioner in view of the fact that he was not a party before the Tribunal and that, in any event, the earlier order-in-original, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, had already been accepted by the department. Despite this, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), in the second round of adjudication, imposed a penalty on the petitioner. We are of the view that this could not have been done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The remand by the Tribunal did not relate to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Departments, other than those involved in WP(C) 1677/2010, WP(C) 1112/2010 and WP(C) 2303/2010, were also issued show cause notices and they have also filed writ petitions but their case is somewhat different and, therefore, we are only dealing with the present official, namely, Mr B.B. Goel. The petitioner has filed WP(C) No.1680/2010 and WP(C) No.1684/2010. The petitioner was alleged to be involved in the activities concerning two exporters, namely, Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited. 3. The said show cause notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) by the order-in-original passed on 30.10.2006. 4. Thereafter, the exporters, namely, Buildex Metals and National Steel Products ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter hearing the parties thereto, set aside the order-in-original dated 30.10.2006 and remanded the matters for de novo consideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). Subsequent thereto, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) passed fresh orders-in-original on 18.12.2009 and 29.12.2009. This time, however, a penalty of Rs 1.5 lacs was imposed on Mr B.B. Goel, in two of the cases. 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no matter pending before the Tribunal pertaining to the present petitioner when the order of remand was made. Therefore, there was no question of his case being re-considered by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), when he conducted his de novo adjudication. Consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been accepted by the department. Despite this, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication), in the second round of adjudication, imposed a penalty on the petitioner. We are of the view that this could not have been done in the facts and circumstances of the case. The remand by the Tribunal did not relate to the petitioner as he was not a party before the Tribunal. 8. As a consequence, the impugned order-in-original dated 18.12.2009 is set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioner in respect of the subject matter of the present petitions. The writ petitions are allowed to this extent. The parties shall bear their own respective costs. The writ petitions stand disposed of. BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J V.K. JAIN, J - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
