9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. and 16 others. This Show Cause Notice had two parts. In Part I, certain discrepancies were alleged. Certain other discrepancies were alleged in Part II. The ld. Collector, by the impugned order, dropped the allegations in Part I of the Show Cause Notice and in regard to allegations contained in Part II of the Show Cause Notice demanded duty amounting to Rs. 32,96,88,000/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This duty was demanded from M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited. The Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 34,20,000/- on M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited. He further imposed penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakh each on S/Shri Amit Sen Gupta, Director, Bhaskar Banerjee, Director, Pradip Kakkar, Director, Deepak Atal, Director, K.K. Mitra Director and S.R. Guha Roy, Factory Manager under Rules 9(2), 52A, 210 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules. This order was addressed to 18 Noticees. This Order was reviewed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under their Order No. 142-R/92, dated 18-8-1992. The Board, on examination of the Order, was satisfied that the dropping of the charges relating to incomplete machine cards (with no we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat every appeal under this section shall be filed within three months from the date on which the order said to be appealed against is communicated to the Commissioner of Central Excise or as the case may be to the other party preferring the Appeal. He submitted thus against one Order, there can be only one appeal. In the instant case, the ld. ASG submitted that only one Order was passed and that was the Order No. 22/1991 and, therefore, only one appeal was required making all the 18 respondents as party to case which was filed within 3 months from the date of receipt of the Order. He submitted that the supplementary appeals were filed simply because the Tribunal had, for its administrative convenience, been requiring filing of as many appeal as there are parties against whom the orders were passed. The ld. ASG submitted that this Tribunal in the case of Raj Industries v. CC [1992 (57) E.L.T. 78] held that The condonation applications had been filed in respect of the supplementary appeals in compliance with the procedural requirements. In view of the fact that the main appeal had been filed within limitation and following the general practice in such cases, the delay in filing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this case also was that there is a valid ground taken by the respondents and has been pointed out that there are no reasons to condone the COD application when the latches and indulgence are patent on record and no reasons have been shown for not filing the supplementary appeals, when the Collector had clearly given instructions to do so in his authorisation under Section 35B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. 8. The ld. ASG also referred to the Board s Order in Review and submitted that the Board had examined the impugned order in respect of allegations contained in Part I of the Show Cause Notice and had directed of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi to apply to the CEGAT for correct determination of the points framed therein. The ld. ASG submitted that Show Cause Notice was one, Order-in-Original was one and hence the Collector of Central Excise had rightly filed one Appeal though the parties involved were 18. 9. The ld. ASG, therefore, prayed that having regard both to the legal position obtaining under Section 35B(3) as also the case law cited and relied upon, coupled with the fact that the Tribunal has consistently been holding the view that filing of suppl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew Order and that is why only one appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise; that in that appeal, M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited was made the Respondent and that the list containing 18 names was filed subsequently as an afterthought. It was also submitted that valuable rights accrued to the other parties on account of Revenue not proceeding to file an appeal by accepting the Order of the ld. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. This right cannot be taken away by filing the appeal letter alongwith a COD application without adequately explaining each day s delay and that this right cannot be denied; that the appeal was filed only against M/s. New Tobacco Company Limited and that after 4 years, supplementary appeals have been filed; that Registry s letter is dated 2-7-1994 whereas the 17 supplementary appeals are filed in 1997. It was also argued that in case the other parties were also to be a part of that appeal, then summons should have been issued to them whereas no summons were issued to others except Ms/. New Tobacco Company Limited. 13. It was also argued by the ld. Counsels that if the other persons were made party to the Appeals, no reason has been adduced or fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. Counsels for the Respondents submitted that such applications were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regarding appeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 35B shall, so far as may be, apply to such application. It was submitted that there is no provision for condonation of delay in respect of such Applications (Appeals). The ld. Counsels, therefore, submitted that there were no directions of the Board to file appeals against those for whom allegations contained in Part I of the Show Cause Notice were dropped. The ld. Counsels submitted that the directions in the Board s Review Order were clear; that the Collector of Central Excise was directed to file an appeal against New Tobacco Company which was the Assessee. The Counsels, therefore, prayed that since delay has not been explained properly and since the law does not provide for condonation of delay in respect of such applications, therefore, the CODs may be rejected. 16. Heard the submissions of both sides. We note that the Central Board of Excise and Customs had reviewed the Order-in-Original No. 521/32/DGI/ADJ/3132, dated 23-8-199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order passed by the Collector to the extent indicated above and should confirm the demand of the Central Excise duty in full as mentioned in the show cause notice and impose an appropriate amount of penalty taking into consideration the gravity of offence and duty evaded by the assessee or pass such other order as may be deemed fit." 18. The issue, therefore, for decision is whether as many appeals is there were Respondents were required to be filed or only one composite appeal involving all the parties was required to be filed. 19. On scrutiny of the adjudication order, we find that there is only one adjudication order; that this Adjudication Order is Order-in-Original No. 22/1991; that different numbers have not been given in regard to each party. No doubt, a copy of this order has been endorsed to all the 18 parties involved. We also note that what has been reviewed is the Adjudication Order No. 22/1991 itself. The review is in respect of the decision on allegations contained in Part I of the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, all the parties against whom allegations were mentioned in Part-I of the Show Cause Notice become relevant. A doubt was raised by the Respondents here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
