9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Central Excise, Respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction and is illegal. 2. The petitioner is a dealer in G.T.C. Brands of cigarettes at Hyderabad. It receives supplies of cigarettes from G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay and Hyderabad. It claims to have purchased central excise duty paid cigarettes from G.T.C. Industries Limited, Bombay and Hyderabad. On April 18, 1996 Order bearing D.O.R. No. 21/88 CFC (PF), dated April 16, 1996 issued by the 1st respondent, was served on the petitioner by the Inspector of Central Excise who came to the petitioner's premises along with two panch witnesses and attached goods worth Rs. 12,16,367.98. The petitioner says that under Rule 230(2) of the Rules the goods cannot be attached and pra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgeable with duty not paid. - (1) xx xx xx (2) Where any such person transfers or otherwise disposes his business, in whole or in part, or effects any change in the ownership thereof, in consequence of which he is succeeded in the business or trade or part thereof by any other person or persons, all excisable goods, materials, preparations, plant, machinery vessels, utensils, implements and articles in the custody or possession of the person or persons succeeding may also be obtained for the purpose of exacting duty due from the producer, manufacturer or dealer upto the time of such transfer, disposal or change, whether such duty has been assessed before such transfer, disposal or change, but has remained unpaid, or is assessed thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cleared by M/s. G.T.C. Industries, Bombay available at the premises of M/s. Shreeji Traders, Ramkoti, Hyderabad to realise the arrears of revenue pending against M/s. G.T.C. and U.T.C. in terms of Order-in-Original No. 25/1992, dated 10-7-1992 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi. Sd./- N.K. Prasada Assistant Commissioner". 9. From a perusal of the order extracted above, it is manifest that none of the requirements of rule, has been satisfied. Indeed, there is not even a reference to transfer of business by M/s. G.T.C. Industries Limited to the petitioner. It is not even alleged that the petitioner is the successor of M/s. G.T.C. Industries Limited. There is no mention that the goods have been assessed to duty and the duty has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
