9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (4) TMI 497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is : "Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that the Collector of Central Excise, Madras was not a Customs Officer at the time he made the order which was under Appeal?" THE FACTS OF THE CASE 2. The facts of the case which led the appellant to file before the Tribunal in C/2556 and 2557/94 are that by Order-in-Original No. 24/93, dated 11-1-94 passed by Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) confirming of demand of Rs. 9,76,622/- being the differential duty towards 55.315 MTs of zinc/tin coated sheets/coils and uncoated coils under Section 28 of the Customs Act. Besides there was an order of confiscation of the said goods which were valued at Rs. 7,62,551/- under Section 111(d), (f), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act, however, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explain by the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial), Madras as to why the differential duty should not be demanded in terms of the grounds made out in the show cause notice. The appellants had taken various pleas regarding the nature of the goods. They had specifically contended that the goods satisfied the declaration filed by them and in terms of the notification and hence they were not liable for seizure or for levy of short-duty as alleged in the show cause notice. The appellants have also asked for mutilation claim of the goods to an extent of 53.31 MTs. of zinc/tin coated sheets/coils and uncoated coils for the purpose of end-use, i.e. for the purpose of melting. Various evidences were also placed by the appellants to contend that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a bond to the Commissioner of Customs after the goods were assessed in the Bill of Entry, the Proper Officer had examined the goods and after examination had ordered for clearance on execution of the bond. The proper course was that the Proper Officer was to have proceeded with the investigation on the matter and by issuing show cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act on allegation of Misdeclaration, etc. But the proceedings had been taken over instead by the Collector of Central Excise without reference of the matter to the Collector of Customs to whom the appellants had executed the bond. The Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) who was issued the show cause notice ought to have explained to the Tribunal on being called upon th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
