2010 (5) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. In these writ petitions, which raise common issues, the petitioner seeks the quashing of the order-in-original dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) insofar as it operates against him. A prayer has also been made seeking a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order-in-original dated 18.12.2009. Similar issues have been decided by us on 26.04.2010 in WP(C) 1677/2010, WP(C) 1112/2010 and WP(C) 2303/2010. 2. The sequence of events leading up to the filing of the writ petitions began with the issuance of show cause notices to several exporters as well as to the present petitioner, who is an offic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue in respect of him nor was any appeal filed by the revenue in respect of Buildex Metals or National Steel Products Company Limited in connection with which, notice had been issued to the petitioner. However, Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited had preferred appeals against the order-in-original dated 30.10.2006 before the Tribunal. The present petitioner was, however, not made a party to those appeals inasmuch as Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Company Limited were not at all concerned with the order of exoneration of the present petitioner, namely, Mr B.B. Goel. This is an admitted position. 5. However, in the appeals filed by the exporters including Buildex Metals and National Steel Products Comp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ribunal when the order of remand was passed by the Tribunal. He was neither made a party by the exporters nor by the revenue and there was no question of the petitioner having filed any appeal because he had already been exonerated by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication). Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal, whereby the matter was remanded for de novo consideration, could not, in any event, affect the petitioner in any way. The petitioner had specifically brought to the notice of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) in the course of the de novo proceedings that no proceedings could be taken up against the petitioner in view of the fact that he was not a party before the Tribunal and that, in any event, the ....