9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 391X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd permitting them to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1.00 lac. 2. The chief accountant of the appellant seeks an adjournment on the ground that its lawyer is out of station. He does not say why he is out of station. On it being pointed out to him that earlier also adjourned on the same ground and therefore could not be adjourned further, he excused himself from participation in the hearing, as he was unaware of the details. I have accordingly read the papers and heard the departmental representative. 3. It is contended that this matter has already been adjudicated by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad in his order dated 3-2-1990 on a notice issued by the department dated 22-2-1989 demanding duty on c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter of the show cause notice or adjudication by the Collector. It is therefore not correct to say that there has been double adjudication on the same issues and on the same set of facts. The decisions of this Tribunal in CCE v. Laxmi Jewellery - 1989 (44) E.L.T. 305 and Godrej Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CCE - 1994 (71) E.L.T. 429 have therefore to be distinguished. Each of these decisions related to a situation where the second adjudication on identical grounds and relating to the same goods as the first was struck down. In the first case, gold ornaments already the subject matter of a seizure and adjudication was sought to be adjudicated again. In the second case, the question as to whether the goods sold by the appellant was in the nature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar to purchasing goods when one has sufficient money in the bank account and omitting to make payment for them. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in CCE v. Danfoss (India) Ltd. - 1984 (18) E.L.T. 238 cited by the appellant exhonerated the respondent before it on evasion of Central Excise duty. It noted that even it has been admitted that some gate passes has not been debited in the PLA, witness of the department are expected that duty has otherwise been paid on these goods. In that context therefore, it says, that failure to debit in the account was a minor irregularity. The facts here are different. There was nothing to show that duty was otherwise paid. The Tribunal decision in Garden Reach Shipbuilders Engineers Ltd. v. CCE - 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
