TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (7) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in appeal before the Tribunal that the appellate authority was not competent to issue the directions as she had issued in her remand order. It had also been pleaded that a number of grounds taken in the appeal and the figures/details submitted at the time of the personal hearing had not been discussed by the ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). In the order-in-original, the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, Faridabad had demanded the duty of Rs. 26,74,878.75 and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,00,000/-. 2. The matter was heard on 18-06-2001 when Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appearing for M/s. Pahwa submitted that the show cause notices in these proceedings were issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and in the show caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the order has to be read as a whole and that the appellate authority was competent to remand the matter with such directions as were considered relevant for the disposal of the matter and which were in the interest of justice. He relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Pradyumna Steel Ltd. - 1996 (82) E.L.T. 441 (S.C.). 3. We have carefully considered the matter. Three show cause notices were issued to M/s. Pahwa on 4-1-99, 15-1-99 and 26-11-99 by the Superintendent of Central Excise, demanding differential central excise duty of Rs. 12,72,117/- for the period April, 1998 to September, 1998, Rs. 2,57,679/- for the period October, 1998 to December, 1998 and Rs. 11,45,082.75 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been made in the show cause notices to wilful suppression and mis-statement of facts. This reference to wilful suppression and mis-statement of facts was not to bring the demands within the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944 but to refer to the fact of availment of in-eligible small-scale exemption. In the show cause notices, the central excise duty was demanded under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excises Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority had confirmed the demand of Rs. 26,74,879/- and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 26,00,000/-. 5. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in her order had observed that as the show cause notices alleged wilful suppression and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d be examined in the light of the various CEGAT decisions available on this subject." 6. We find that the matter relating to the denial of the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-02-93 (as amended), Notification No.16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-97, to the textile printing adhesive manufactured by M/s. Pahwa had already been decided by the Tribunal while disposing of their earlier appeal bearing No. E/1111/99-D. It was held that the textile printing adhesive manufactured by M/s. Pahwa were affixed with the brand name of ineligible foreign company. In Final Order No. 346/2000-D, dated 17-10-2000, 2001 (138) E.L.T. 477 (Tribunal) it was held as under :- "It is thus, seen that M/s. Pahwa were not eligible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never brought to the notice of the Department. Nor was it entered in any of the Registers maintained by the appellant. No classification list informing its production was ever filed before the Excise Authority. In such state of affairs the Assistant Collector was only making a statement of fact that all the details were not divulged by the manufacturer. It was in that sense and, that sense alone, word "suppressed" was used in the show cause notice. This must be more so when it is seen that the show cause notice was not in relation to anything done by the assessee for a period beyond six months. Officer was confining his claim to the period covered by the main Section itself. The appellant has no case that he ever paid Excise Duty in relatio....