AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (3) TMI 186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 as amended by Notification No. 141/79 dated 30-9-1979 for the year 1979-80. In that year, the appellant manufactured and cleared the goods valued at Rs. 14,16,520.55 ps. The appellant also manufactured Sodium Silicate from the raw material supplied by M/s. A. Pankaj Kumar Patel & Bros. (hereinafter referred to as Pankaj Kumar) and goods of the value of Rs. 3,71,193.88 ps. of the ownership of said Pankaj Kumar were cleared. The said Pankaj Kumar had filed necessary declaration under Notification No. 305/77 dated 5-11-1977 read with Notification No. 111/78 dated 9-5-1978 and Notification No. 71/78 authorising the appellant to manufacture goods on Pankaj Kumar's behalf on Pankaj Kumar's Loan License. The appellant had....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....referred these four appeals against the said order. 3. We have heard Sh. S.J. Vyas, Ld. C.A. for the appellant and Shri V. Chander Sekharan, ld. S.D.R. for the respondent. 4. The facts in this case are not in dispute. So figures of clearances and rate of duty and calculation of duty for different periods, stated in show cause notices, are not in dispute. Sh. Vyas strenuously contended that Pankaj Kumar had filed necessary declaration as required under Notification No. 305/77 read with Notification No. 111/78 and also filed a declaration under Notification No. 71/78. So, the said unit was exempt from licensing control and also from payment of excise duty if its clearances did not exceed Rs. 15 lakhs. That the raw materials were supplie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ufactured by the manufacturer either on its own behalf or on behalf of some other unit have to be treated as clearances of the manufacturer only. So, this contention of the appellant that clearances by the appellant, on behalf of Pankaj Kumar, should not be clubbed with the clearances by the appellant on its own behalf, has no force. So, on merits, the appellant has no case. 6. The appellant has raised a contention of law also. It has been stated in the appeal memo and it has also been argued by Sh. Vyas that the adjudication orders were issued by the Assistant Collector on 27-8-1982 and the order under provisions of Sec. 35E(2) has been passed by the Collector, Central Excise on 19-6-1984 and was communicated to the concerned authority,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of Sec. 35E(2) under which the Collector of Central Excise has exercised the power of examination and has directed the Assistant Collector to prefer an application before the Collector (Appeals), came into force from that date i.e. 11-10-1982. The adjudication orders were passed on 27-8-1982, so they were passed before the date on which Chapter VIA and consequently, Section 35E were introduced in the said Act. So, when these orders were passed, the Collector was not authorised to exercise those powers. The provisions of Sec. 35E are not retrospective per se and there is no provision in the Act whereby they could be deemed to have been given retrospective effect. So, the Collector could not have exercised powers under Sec. 35E(2). Sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the provisions of Sec. 35E(2) : SECTION 35E. Powers of Board or Collector of Central Excise to pass certain orders - (1) xxxx (2) The Collector of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to the Collector (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Collector of Central Excise in his order." 10. It is true that the effect of this interpretation would be that under the....