9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (3) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty of Rs. 35,000/- on them. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that acting on an intelligence the Central Excise Officers visited the premises of M/s. Narendra Products, Nai Ki Mandi, Agra on 17-12-1992 and found that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Shankar Gutka. M/s. Narendra Products, Nai Ki Mandi was holding a Central Excise licence for the manufacture of pan masala gutka. Shri Narendra Kumar, proprietor of M/s. Narendra Products, Nai Ki Mandi in his statement recorded on 3-1-1993 stated that in the beginning they were manufacturing 'Lehar' brand tobacco mix pan masala gutka; that since Lehar tobacco mix pan masala did not succeed in the market, they stopped manufacturing it and started manufacturing 'Shankar' Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passes, they had made a consolidated debit entry of the amount of duty involved in respect of GP1 No. 6, dated 1-11-1992 to GP1 dated 25-11-1992. However, in respect of GP1 No. 10, dated 1-12-1992, no debit entry whatsoever was made in the PLA it was, therefore alleged in the SCN that M/s. Narendra Products, Nai Ki Mandi under GP1 No. 6 dated 1-11-1992, 37.5 kgs of Sharikar Gutka in the form of 30,000 pouches and another 12.5 kgs of Shankar Gutka contained in 10,000 pouches without payment of duty. Intelligence also showed that there was another unit of Shri Narendra Kumar at New Adarsh Nagar, Agra. This unit was found engaged in the manufacture of clearance of Shankar Gutka with the help 3 pouch making machines without obtaining Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the officers 83.5 kgs of Zarda Pan Masala was lying at New Adarsh Nagar unit in loose condition. It was, therefore alleged that a total 141.500 kgs of loose zarda pan masala was consumed up to 17-12-1992 for the packing and manufacturing of Shankar Gutka at New Adarsh Nagar unit. SCN was accordingly issued by the Collector asking the appellants to deposit the duty and also imposed the penalty on two units. 4. Shri A.K. Jain and Rajesh Jain, ld. Advocates submit that there are 6 demands; that they are not pressing 3 demands of Rs. 97,076.10, Rs. 12,684.60 and Rs. 4,695.12 inasmuch as these demands have been conceded to. They submit that all their arguments are in respect of first demand of Rs. 5,81,118.95, the second demand of Rs. 4,07,566 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ta High Court in the case of Manindra Chandra Dey [1992 (58) E.L.T. 192]. They, therefore pray that the demand is not sustainable. 6. On the third demand, ld. Advocates submit that this demand is based on the statement of the driver; that this statement was retracted on 2 days after; that an affidavit was filed by the driver retracting his statement; that this affidavit has not been dealt with; that the appellants requested for cross examination; that the cross examination of the two ladies whose statement has been relied upon and the driver was not allowed. They, therefore submit that the demand is not enforceable. 7. Ld. Advocates submit that there are number of points of law involved in this case. The first point of law was whether a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducive to their smooth working, otherwise there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer. Therefore, law declared by a High Court is binding on all its subordinate courts and tribunals and if proceedings are initiated in violation of it, such notices are invalid and proceedings started thereunder are without jurisdiction." Ld. Counsels submit that in this view of the matter the adjudication order is invalid and is illegal as the officer who passed the order did not have legal competence to decide the issue. 8. Ld. Advocates also agitated the case on limitation. He submits that the case of the appellants was that an officer of Central Excise was always staying in the factory of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to the point of law, we find that this Tribunal in the case of Madura Coats [1996 (82) E.L.T. 512] held that the judicial discipline requires that the Tribunal should follow the decision of the jurisdictional High Court when views of other High Courts are conflicting. In the instant case, we find that the decision is of Allahabad High Court on the issue that if the rule provides that the Collector includes Addl. Commissioner, this position cannot be made applicable to provisions of the Acts or things done under the Act. Allahabad High Court in that case held that the proceedings were under the Act and simply because the rules provide that District Magistrate includes the Addl. District Magistrate, this authorisation cannot become valid f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
