1997 (12) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... U.L. Bhat, President]. Collector of Central Excise, Guntur has filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No. 95/88 dated 7-6-1988 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. 2. The cigarette factory concerned in this case was originally owned by M/s. Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. It appears dispute arose on price list No. 2/82 in which the manufacturer proposed deductio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r the control of the present respondent, M/s. New Tobacco Company Ltd., alleged to be a subsidiary of the original owner. The bank guarantees, except four furnished by United Bank of India, Calcutta for Rs. 60 lakhs, were being renewed from time to time by the original owner of the factory and later by the respondent. The writ petition was dismissed on merits by the High Court on 24-11-1986. The e .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... our bank guarantees. After the failure of the respondent to deposit Rs. 60 lakhs as directed by the High Court, the Assistant Collector, Rajahmundry sent a letter to the respondent on 7-12-1987 referring to the above facts and stating that the balance amount of Rs. 60 lakhs due from the respondent being differential duty on the cigarettes cleared from the factory is hereby confirmed. Treating this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owned subsidiary of the original owner of the factory, that the dispute is not with regard to liability for payment of duty but only as to who should pay the amount, whether it is the respondent or the original owner, that the contempt proceedings were pending and, therefore, the Collector (Appeals) should not have entertained the appeal and there was no need to invoke Section 11A of the Act to co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... llector as an order passed by the statutory authority, the view taken by the Collector (Appeals) appears to be correct. In this view, the aspect that the respondent failed to renew the bank guarantees and did not make any deposit as required by the High Court has no significance; that is because it is not the case of the appellant that the High Court passed any order enabling the Department to rec .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X