9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (6) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mon order. 2. The appellants have filed the appeals against the order-in-original No. V-15(46)/OFF/Sheela Foam/90/1776 dated 20-3-1992 and V(418)/OFF/89/1772 dated 20-3-1992 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Div-II, Noida. In consequence of the order-in-appeal No. 183-184/93 dated 31-3-1993 passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Ghaziabad dismissing the appeals filed before him against the said order passed by the Assistant Collector on the grounds that the order having been passed under the directions of the order-in-original No. 34-Collector/1990 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut the appropriate forum for appeal was Tribunal and not the Collector (Appeals). 2A. On behalf of the appellants lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tral Excise, Meerut. 29-10-1991 - Date of issue of notice by the Assistant Collector for personal appearance and producing defence material. 20-3-1992 - Date of issue of order in original by the Asstt. Collector. 2-4-1992 - Date of receipt of order-in-original of the Assistant Collector by the appellants. 1-5-1992 -Date of filing of appeal against the order of the Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, Ghaziabad. 17-11-1992 - Date of personal hearing attended before the Collector Appeals, Central Excise, Ghaziabad for pleading defence. 31-3-1993 - Date of the order in appeal passed by the Collector Appeals, Central Excise, Ghaziabad. 6-4-1993 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 1983 (14) E.L.T. 1845. He contended that under these circumstances the appellants could not claim that they were misled by the directions given in the preamble to the orders passed by the Assistant Collector. He, therefore, pleaded for rejection of the application for condonation of delay and also the appeals. 5. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of both sides. The orders appealed against by the appellants were received on 2-4-1992 hence the appeal to the Tribunal should have been filed by 2-7-1992. The appeals were actually received in the registry on 12-4-1993. Hence there is a delay of 9 months and 10 days in filing the appeals. The appellants case is that they had filed the appeals before the Collector (Appeals)/ Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lower authority to enforce the demand notice already issued by the Collector would not be an independent order or the decision and the appeal against such consequential order of the lower authority would lie to the Appellate Tribunal because the basic order will be that of the Collector. Para 16 of the Tribunal s order being relevant is reproduced below: Against the position as thus simply stated, arguments have been put forward, some by the learned Technical Member and some by the Departmental Representative. The learned Technical Member has observed that though the Collector s order orders recovery of duty in terms of Section 72(1), there is no order from the Collector in terms of sub-section (2). With due respect, I am unable to agre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Collector were in pursuance of the following directions given by the Collector of Central Excise in his order-in-original No. 34-Collector/1990 dated 31-12-1990 : 1. The Asstt. Collector should take into consideration the various submissions, calculations submitted by the party and my observation in this adjudication order and work out the correct demand amount after giving the party full opportunity of explaining the calculation and confirm the same and enforce the realisation of short levy under Section 11-A of Central Excises Salt Act, 1944. 2. The penalty clause as alleged in the show cause notice under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q of Central Excise Rules is dropped." It is se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
