9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 - Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Sambuddha Chakrabarti, JJ. Ananda Sen, Adv., for the Appellant Tapas Hazra with K.K. Maity, Adv., for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Mr. Sen, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, undertakes to pay additional Court Fees for preferring this appeal challenging two different orders passed by the Tribunal below. Let such additional Court Fees be paid tomorrow. On such undertaking, we propose to take up this application under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. This application is at the instance of an manufacturer and is directed against order dated 25th April, 2011 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount should not be deemed to have been cleared without payment of central excise duty, why the central excise duty of Rs.1,46,37,793/- including education cess should not be demanded from them under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. In the said show cause notice the appellant was further asked to show cause as to why interest at the appropriate rate on the amount of Rs.1,46,37,793/- should not be charged under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act and a penal action should not be initiated in terms of Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Central Excise by order dated 31st March, 2008 passed an order by which the appellant was directed to pay duty of Rs.1,46,37,793/- along with interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lable one under the Act and the appellant, before us, not having challenged that order, cannot dispute the legality of the said order in subsequent proceeding. It is not the case of the appellant that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction or authority to pass the order dated 5th June, 2006. What Mr. Sen tried to impress upon us was that the order datd 5th June, 2006 was not in accordance with law. We are of the view that there being no inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in passing the order dated 5th June, 2006 and the said order having attained finality as the appellant did not challenge the said order, it is not competent for the appellant to plead before us that it has the right not to comply with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
