2008 (7) TMI 796

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ngs of clandestine removal. In addition penalty of Rs. 10,000/- stands imposed on the second applicant Shri Arunkumar N. Trivedi, Director in terms of the provisions of Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules Arguing on the applications ld. Advocate Shri W. Christian submits that the appellant's factory was visited by the Central Excise authorities on 21-6-2002 and the discrepancies noticed by the officers leading to recording of statements of various persons is the basis for holding against them for clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods. He seeks stay on the ground of limitation as also on the financial hardship. 2. Arguing on limitation, ld. Advocate submits that the factory was visited by the officers on 21-6-2002 and the invest....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ibunal)] 4. After considering the arguments from both the sides, I find that for invoking longer period of limitation, Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of M/s. Nizam Sugar Factory v. CCE, Hyderabad [1999 (114) E.L.T. 429 (Tri.-LB)]. The impugned order stands passed by Commissioner (Appeals) on 25-2-2008. The Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the appellate authority stands overruled allowing time-bar by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (S.C.) = 2008 (9) S.T.R. 314 (S.C.). As such it was not proper for Commissioner (Appeals) to rely upon a decision which stands overruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court at the time of passing of the order, with....