9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 34X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T) and Shri D.N. Panda, Member (J) Shri J.A. Khan, SDR, for the Appellant. Shri Partha Banerjee, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per: Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. In this case, by the impugned order dated 29-3-2004, the adjudicating Commissioner has dropped the proceedings involving duty demand of over Rs. 2.60 crores. While doing so, he has followed the ratio of the Tribunal's earlier orders in the case of M/s. Delta Plastics v. C.C.E. - KOL-I-2003 (56) RLT 85 and in the case of M/s. Brijmohan Sheokishan v. C.C.E. -KOL-I (Order No. S-18-21 and A-6-9 dated 16-1-2003) [2003 (160) E.L.T. 188 (T)] and M/s. Indian Polypipes and Others v. C.C.E. -KO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56-R/2005 dated 18-3-2005 passed by Central Board of Excise Customs (Board). We find that despite the Adjudicating Commissioner, having placed reliance on the earlier decisions of the Tribunal, which have not been appealed against by the Department, and despite the adjudicating Commissioner referring to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation, the Board has directed the adjudicating Commissioner to file this Appeal to the Tribunal. 4. In a group of similar cases which were heard and decided by us on 30-4-2008 vide M/s. Associated Polymer Industries v. C.C.E., Kolkata-II - 2008 (227) ELT 449 (Tri.-Kolkata), we had recorded as follows: "6. It goes without saying that if the department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eps whatsoever to safeguard revenue interest and file appeals against the same in the appropriate higher judicial forum and yet chose to criticize the same while passing a statutory review order. It also shows a major lacuna in the functioning of the Department as it does not seem to know how to go about ensuring its own interest in cases involving high revenue stakes. 7. In view of the fact that the earlier orders of the Tribunal have not been appealed against by the Department, we have no option but to hold that the adjudicating Commissioner was wrong in not applying the ratio of those decisions and confirming the duty and penalty under the impugned orders. As such, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed by the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kamlakshi Finance Corporation (cited supra) in paragraph 5.3 of the order-in-Review, has still chosen to direct the Authorities below to file this Appeal. It is rather inexplicable as to why the Board did not appeal against the earlier orders of the Tribunal when those were passed in the case of M/s. Delta Plastics Others . Once those orders were not appealed against and therefore impliedly accepted, the adjudicating Commissioner in this case had no choice but was duty bound to follow the ratio of those decisions as a matter of judicial discipline. The adjudicating Commissioner has, therefore, correctly followed the Tribunal's earlier orders which have not been appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
