9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal in terms of Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act - We may clarify that although the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Girish B. Mishra is in connection with the provisions of the Central Excise Act, yet the provisions of customs are analogous to the provisions of the Act, 1944. The case is squarely applicable to the present facts. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the CESTAT was right in interpreting the Order in Original dated 31.03.2005 and coming to a conclusion that there was no demand of redemption fine? - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal in so many words has observed that there was no clear proposal in the show-cause notice with regard to imposition of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Girish B. Mishra; Tax Appeal No.951 of 2012, decided on 13th February, 2013. We may quote the relevant observation as contained in Paragraph-7. 7. The Adjudicating Authority has been defined in Section 2(a) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as under: (a) Adjudicating authority means any authority competent to pass any order or decision under this Act, but does not include the Central Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central Board of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 0f 1963), (Commissioner of Central (Appeals)) or Appellate Tribunal; Question for consideration before us is whether the order passed by the Commissioner rejecting the application of the respondent for compounding the off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a party and would not include merely an administrative order. In the present case, however, the Commissioner s order does decide the question of compoundability of an offence of the applicant concerned and would therefore, in our view, satisfy the description of any order or decision passed by him under this Act. In that view of the matter, appeal against any such order would lie before the Tribunal in terms of Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal thus, was justified in entertaining such an appeal. With regard to merits of the issue, the Tribunal has merely remanded the proceedings before the Commissioner for fresh consideration and decision in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application for compounding, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of this order and pass a fresh order. 6. It appears from the above that the tribunal looked into the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shivam Development Trust And Another Vs. Union of India; Special Civil Application No.7301 of 2015; decided on 03rd May 2016 . The Coordinate Bench observed in Paragraph6 as under: 6. In this order as well as in the abovenoted directions also, there was no indication that the petitioner trust is liable to pay the fine of ₹ 7.25 lacs in lieu of confiscation. In absence of any proposal in the show cause notice for imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation relatable to the petitioner and in ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
