9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants, has sent the written submissions wherein it has been mentioned that the present impugned Order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in pursuance of Tribunal s Final Order No. A-560/2001-NB, dated 19-7-2001 [2002 (146) E.L.T. 311 (T)] under which the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals); that not gone into Appeal, thereby admitting the same; that in such circumstances impugned order itself cannot survive. 3. Countering the arguments, Shri R.C. Sharma, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the Appellants manufacture textile printing adhesive which is sold after packing in plastic jars and affixing paper labels bearing the brand name ATR owned by a foreign concern; that the Appellate Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure of the Board s Circular. He has, further mentioned that it has been held by the Supreme Court in CCE, Vadodara v. Dhiren Chemicals Industries, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) that Board s Circular is binding irrespective of the fact whether the same is right or wrong or contrary to Supreme Court s judgment; that the impugned order is contrary to Board s Circular No. 3/92-CX 6, dated 14-5-92 and 299/15/97-CX, dated 27-2-97 wherein it has been held that if a show cause notice contains allegation of wilful mis-statement, it has to be issued only by the Commissioner/Additional Commissioner and not by the Superintendent; that, further, the Deputy Commissioner cannot confirm a demand of Rs. 26.75 lakhs as the same is beyond the monetary limit pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner (Appeals) has passed the present impugned order after hearing the Appellants. In view of these facts, it cannot be claimed by the Appellants that the present impugned order has been passed beyond the remand order passed by the Tribunal. As far as the jurisdiction of the Superintendent to issue the Show Cause Notice is concerned, the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has given his specific finding that the Appellants were not called upon to show cause as to why extended period under proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 should not be invoked. Hence, there was no reason to challenge the same specially when the period of demand falls within the normal period of limitation during which Show Cause Notices were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
