9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d advocate Shri N.L. Banerjee appeared for the applicants and the learned JDR Shri B.B. Sarkar appeared for the department. 3. The facts of the case are that the petitioner preferred an appeal No. E-5/89 before this Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the orders passed by the Additional Collector in Order No. 21/Biscuits/Addl. Collr./CE/Cal. II/88 dated 30-8-1988. A Stay Petition was also filed, which was heard by this Tribunal and orders were passed on 31-7-1989 directing the petitioners to deposit Rs. 15,000/- towards Central Excise duty and Rs. 5,000/- towards penalty. The Tribunal also ordered that the appeal be transferred to the Special Bench of the Tribunal in view of the submissions made by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Bench at New Delhi is apparent from the records and the same is to be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and Rule 31A of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. He also stated that an observation made in the order of the Hon ble High Court is not in the nature of direction and that may not be an obstruction for passing the order on this rectification application 6. The learned JDR, Shri B.B. Sarkar stated that the orders passed by this Tribunal requiring the case to be transferred to the Special Bench is upheld by the Hon ble High Court and there is no question of rectification of any order of this Tribunal. It was his submission that the orders passed by the High Court are binding on all the parties an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) the Tribunal had gone into all the questions raised including the question of undue hardship. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and Others v. Maharaja D.P. Singh reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 and also the decision of the CEGAT in the case of Jayashree Industries Ltd., Rishra v. Collector of Central Excise reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 279. (iii) That there was admittedly a dispute regarding the rate of duty applicable as recorded in the order of the Tribunal. I am of the view that the last contention of the respondents must be accepted. The petitioner had itself submitted to the transfer of the case to the Special Bench at New Delhi. 10. A perusal of the above observations of their Lordship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
