AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 142
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed their appeal and remand the same for de novo adjudication with a specific direction to the Collector to issue a speaking order, discussing all the evidence and giving detailed reasons for findings & conclusions. In terms of the said order, the ld. Collector held the adjudication and during the proceedings before him the appellants cross examined the departmental officers including Shri V.M. Doiphode, Additional Collector Customs, Bombay who was then Assistant Collector, Pune I Division, Shri B.N. Kasbe, the then Supdt. Central Excise Pune IV Division and Shri L.B. Attar, then Inspector, Pune I Division. The ld. Collector after granting the personal hearing and hearing the argument, he purported to have passed the impugned order. 2. The first and formost plea raised by the ld. Counsel before us, is with regard to the validity of the show cause notice dt. 23-12-1985 as the same has been signed by the Dy. Collector invoking larger period under Section 11A of the Act. According to the ld. Counsel, this has been despatched only after the date of amendment to the Section 11A, by which the show cause notice has to be issued only by Collector in respect of invokation of la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 11A and has imposed a penalty of Rs. 11 lakhs. On page 12, correction has been made and the ld. Collector in his hand-writing has added few sentences in the margin. The ld. Collector in his comments to the Jt. CDR by his letter dt. 2-12-1993 has stated as follows : "My dear Kak, Sub:- Central Excise case against M/s. Perfect Industries, Pune - O.I.O. No. 40/CEX/91 passed by Collector, Central Excise, Pune regarding. ....... Please refer to the telephonic enquiry on the above subject. 2. The file hearing No. V(68)/15-67/Adj./85/Pt. III containing office copy of O.I.O. is enclosed for ready reference. 3. Perusal of this will show that the entire draft order is written in long hand in manuscript. The order was dictated in long hand to the dealing hand in Adjudication Cell. Thereafter, it was further corrected and edited by the Adjudicating Authority in his own hand-writing (in red ink). Each and every page is, therefore, clearly the result of application of mind of the Adjudicating Authority. 4. This may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Tribunal. 5. The file may please be returned after Hon'ble Tribunal's perusal as it is required in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rief facts in the file other than the order itself written in long hand in pages 1 to 12. The Collector has now in his letter, submitted that the entire draft order is written in long hand in manuscript and that the order was dictated in long hand to the dealing hand in Adjudication Cell. The letter further states "that thereafter it was further corrected and edited by the Adjudicating Authority in his own hand-writing in red ink and each and every page is, therefore, clearly the result of application of mind of the Adjudicating Authority". The ld. Collector has not disclosed the name of the person who has taken the dictation in long hand. There is no explanation as to why this order was not dictated to the stenographer which is the usual practice and as to why he did not write the order in hand himself but chose to dictate the said order in long hand to the dealing hand in Adjudication Cell. The note sheet order sending in hand-writing and hand-writing in the order appears to be the same. The ink of the note sheet order written by the clerk putting up the file in brief facts on pages 11, 11A of the order and page 11A is the same. The page 10A is also in the same hand-writing and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dication proceedings would be concluded expeditiously and, preferably, within a period of 4 months from the date of this order". 4. In view of these rulings, it is very clear that there is no order which has been passed by the Collector in this case. In the above noted cases at least the Tribunal had found the order to have been drafted by the Collector himself, while in this case it cannot be said that the order has been drafted in his own hand-writing by the Collector himself. This being a serious matter we are of the opinion that it should be referred to the Chairman of the CBEC , New Delhi for reference and enquiry into the matter. As regards, this case is concerned, we are constrained to hold that there is no order in this case and therefore, we remand the matter to the Collector for de novo adjudication. Ld. Collector shall observe all the proceedings and norm in conducting the procedures and passing the orders. The ld. Collector should also take into consideration the plea raised before us with regard to the validity of the show cause notice and also shall consider all other pleas raised by the appellant in this appeal and pass the considered judicious order. The Reg....