9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 121X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of the adjudication order. It was, therefore, in the interest of the Department to complete the adjudication as early as possible. But surprisingly the matter was adjudicated for the first time only vide order dated 26/5/10 and this adjudication was done in such a manner that there was no option for the Tribunal but to remand this matter for denovo adjudication, as the order bearing the date of the decision as "26/5/10" was bearing the signature of the Commissioner who had retired long time back and the order had been passed without supply of documents and without hearing the appellant. The only persons to gain from such avoidable delay in adjudication of this matter are M/s GTC Industries Ltd. and M/s MP Tobacco Ltd. against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e not in accordance with the law and matters stand remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision, after making his mind as to who is the actual manufacturer of cigarettes in question. Reference can be made to Tribunals Final Order No. A/53088 -53099/2014-Ex(DB) dated 28.7.2014, A/51450-51456/2016 dated 6.3.2014 both in the case of Golden Tobacco Ltd. 3. Apart from the above, we also note that the impugned orders stand passed in denovo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded vide Final Order No. 4347 - 349/2011 dated 21.4.11 with certain directions. The said directions does not stand complied with by the adjudicating authority. As such, we direct the adjudicating authority to follow the instructions as contained in the said Fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on in pursuance of the Tribunal's order dated 21/4/11 reported in 2012 (28) S.E. 327 (Tri. - Del.), wherein detailed directions had been given as to how the matter is to be adjudicated. But still the matter has been adjudicated once again in such a manner, that there is no option but to remand the same. The duty demand amounting to about ₹ 49 crores is for the period from October 1990 to March 1995, the show cause notice for which had been issued on 29/9/95. The duty demand being of pre-September 1996 period, the same was immune from interest liability under Section 11AB and the interest liability under Section 11AA, as the same stood during that period, would arise only on expiry of three months from the date of the adjudication ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
