9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ajaj, Member (J)]. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 1-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,923/-, Rs. 3,16,717/- and Rs. 1,65,694/- on the strength of three show cause notices dated 4-11-1992, 14-12-1992 and 3-2-1993 and also imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r and the Collector (Appeals) through the impugned order had set aside on the sole ground that the Assistant Collector was not competent to adjudicate upon the matter as the duty amounts mentioned in all the three show cause notices exceeded his monetary limit specified by the Board vide letter dated 14-5-1992 (Circular No. 3/92-CEX. 6) reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. T3. 4. The Revenue has questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd. No doubt, the duty amount involved in each of the three show cause notices dated 4-11-1992, 14-12-1992 and 3-2-1993 was more than Rs. 50,000/- which was the monetary limit of the Assistant Collector fixed by the Board through circular No. 3/92-CEX. 6 reported in 1992 (6) E.L.T. T3 and he was not competent to adjudicate upon those notices. But the Collector (Appeals) while quashing the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
