2005 (2) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ral Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Regional Bench, at Mumbai (Annexure "J"). The following six questions have been proposed by the appellant : (a) Was the Assistant Director, DRI a competent person for issuing a show cause notice F. No. DRI/SRU/INV-6/2000 dated 19-1-2001 for demanding duties from the appellant company who was a 100% Export Oriented Undertaking though the Assistant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on of facts when it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Collector v. ONGC [1998 (103) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] that only an officer of the rank of Commissioner could have issued a show cause notice with such allegations? (d) Was the concerned authority competent to raise demand of duties under Section 72 of the Customs Act without referring to Section 28 of the said Act as demand for duties .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7) E.L.T. 310 (Tribunal). The Tribunal has rejected the said contention in light of circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs being Circular No. 4/99-Cus dated 15th February 1999. The Tribunal has further found that the larger bench decision, on which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant, was rendered for the period prior to the aforesaid Circular dated 15th February 199 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X