9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pearing on behalf of the applicant, Shri V.S. Nankani, learned Advocate has argued that the Show Cause Notice in question raises the demand on the alleged ground of classification of their product under Heading : 29.36 and 3003.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 as against the applicant s claim of Heading : 23.02. He submits that earlier also, the Collector (Appeals) has, vide his Order dated 30-11-1995, decided the issue of classification against them and as such, the Show Cause Notice pending adjudication before Collector, is likely to go against them resulting in confirmation of huge demand of duty, if not stayed. It was further pleaded by the learned Advocate that the earlier Order of the Collector (Appeals) was based upon the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. He submitted that the Collector has already considered the prayer of the applicant to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the Larger Bench decision becomes available and their appeal pending before the Tribunal is decided; but their request has been rejected by the Collector vide his Office Letter dated 22/25-3-1996. It was his submission that the matter already stands concluded against the appellant by the Tribunal and a subsequent reference to Larger Bench cannot be a ground for stay of proceedings before the Lower Adjudicating Authority. In the circumstances, he prayed for rejection of the application. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the sides. We find ourselves unable to agree with the arguments of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the Excise Authorities have been given a free hand to deal with the future clearance in accordance with the provisions of law and of Section 11AA we find that the said section provides for interest after a period of 3 months from the date of confirmation of demand by the first adjudicating authority. The provisions of the said section cannot be circumvented by seeking stay of proceedings before Collector which will create a bad precedent. 5. In the case of Collector of Central Excise v. M/s. Karna Industries Ltd. reported in 1991 (53) E.L.T. 566 (Tribunal) relied upon by the learned Advocate, the Tribunal stayed the proceedings before the lower authorities in exercise of their inherent jurisdiction as the matter was covered in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
