9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the word ‘Central Excise Officer’. The Central Excise Officer has also been defined in sub-section (B) of Section 2 of the Act - n the present case, a notice has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and the case has been decided by the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise. Both of them were competent officers - In view of this there is no illegality in issuing the notice or dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (the Rules). 4. The Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur passed order dated 17-11-1997 confirming the dues and imposed penalty of rupees one lakh. 5. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filed an appeal. It was dismissed on 10/11-9-1998. The assessee filed second appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), Central Excise, Kanpur are without jurisdiction as held by Tribunal? (ii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal is justified in law in setting aside the show cause notice dated 6-11-1996 without looking into the contents of the said show cause notice which was not even on record before the Tribunal? 8. We have heard Sri S.P. Kesarwani, counsel for the Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em were competent officers. In view of this there is no illegality in issuing the notice or deciding the case under the Act. 11. In view of the above, both the questions are answered in favour of the department and against the assessee. Let our opinion be sent back to the Tribunal for deciding the case in pursuance of the same. 12. It is relevant to point out that the Tribunal while decidin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
