9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rupees twenty lacs. Held that- writ petition is allowed. - 122 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2010 - Rajesj Kumar and S.C. Nigam, JJ. Shri Pankaj Bhatia, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri Subodh Kumar, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order].- By means of the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the impugned demand notice dated 11-1-2010, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli. 2. The first proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") provides that where an order of stay is made in any proceeding relating to an appeal filed under sub-section (1) of Section 35B the Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal within a period of 180 days from the date of such order. The second proviso to Section 35C(2A) of the Act provides that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order, shall on the expiry of that period stand vacated. 3. The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the petitioner was engaged in the processing grey fabrics. The officers of the revenue department visited the premis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned demand notice is patently arbitrary and contrary to the judicial norms and discipline. lie submitted that the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli, and cannot be violated by any reason. He submitted that in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills Private Limited v. CCE, Ahmedabad, reported in 2002 (146) E.L.T. 433, a two Member Bench of the West Zonal Bench, took the view that even though the period of the order of stay initially passed, would come to an end on expiry of 130 days in view of the amended provisions, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to extend the period of stay by passing a fresh order is not affected. He submitted that against the said order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Ahmedabad filed an appeal before the Apex Court, inasmuch as the matter has also been referred to a Larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara, reported in 2004 (169) E.L.T. 267 has affirmed the view taken by the two Member Bench in the case of Kuinar Cotton Mills Private Limited v. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra). He submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eighty days from the date of such order: Provided further that if such appeal is not disposed of within the period specified in the first proviso, the stay order, shall on the expiry of that period stand vacated." 10. The above provision came up for consideration before the two Members' Bench of the Tribunal. The Bench in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills Pri vate Limited v. ca, Ahmedabad (supra) has held that even though the period of the order of stay initially passed, would come to an end on expiry of 180 days in view of the amended provisions, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to extend the period of stay by passing fresh order is not affected. 11. In the case of IPCL v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Vadodara (supra), the above view of the two Members' Bench has been affirmed. The Full Bench of the Tribunal has held that the Tribunal has a jurisdiction to grant stay order even after expiry of 180 days from the date of initial order of stay. Against the order of the two Members' Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Kumar Cotton Mills Private Limited v. CCE, Ahmedabad (supra), the department had filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said appeal was decided on 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve such a blanket stay order. Further, the Hon'ble Tribunal has to decide the matter within three years. Thus, Hon'ble Cestat has erred in passing stay order dated 14-8-2008 and not deciding appeal of the party pertaining to year 2005. This Hon'ble High Court has no jurisdiction to pass orders on the writ petition of the petitioner as alternative remedy was available to it which the assessed availed b way of appeal to Tribunal. Petitioner has also filed a Misc. Application No. E/M/48- 51/21/2010 dated 20-1-2010 on the present issue." 13. The aforesaid averments made in paragraph-6 of the counter affidavit are contemptuous in nature. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Rae Bareli has no authority to say that the order of the Tribunal is erroneous and this Court has no jurisdiction to pass the order. 14. In the case of Union of India v. Kanilakshi Finance Corporation Ltd., re ported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), the Apex Court while dealing with the situation wherein the Assistant Collector has not followed the order of the Appellate Authority. The Apex Court observed as follows: "The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
