9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Tribunal in the case of PCS Industries Ltd. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there are contrary decisions on the same issue. It has to be noted that the decision in the case of Molex (I) Ltd. considered the relevant provisions in greater details and provided an explanation for coming to the conclusion. In view of the above, in our opinion, the appellants have made out a case for complete waiver of pre-deposit and stay against recovery during pendency of the appeals. - Stay granted. - C/20336-20339/2014-DB - Misc. Order Nos. 20875-20878/2014 - Dated:- 28-3-2014 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T) and S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) Shri CSJR Somayajulu, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, AR, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d substantive requirement of notification has been complied with. There is no contrary finding to this effect. In these circumstances, he submits that the appellants have very strong case against the impugned order and therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit of adjudged dues for all four appellants/parties in the adjudication process may be waived. 3. Learned AR submitted that according to Rule 8, the Central Excise authority has power and he relied on the decision in the case of PCS Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Pune [2013-TIOL-1004-CESTAT-MUM] wherein it has been held that the proper officer to take action in the instances like this is the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise if the condition of notification is viol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-user of the imported raw material in terms of the 1996 Rules read with the Customs Notification so that the latter can issue notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act for recovery of the duty forgone under the Notification. Such an action on the part of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise is envisaged by the expression take action to recover . From the above, it can be seen the words take action to recover have been interpreted differently by the Tribunal in two different orders. Even though, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of PCS Industries Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 12-6-2013 and the decision in the case of Molex (I) Ltd. (supra) was rendered on 1-12-2010, the decision in the case of Mol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
