TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (3) TMI 12
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h and Khona (in Sivsagar district of Assam) and Dalgaon Tea Estate in Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. The Lukwah Tea Estate of the petitioner is duly registered with the Central Excise Department for manufacturing tea including tea waste, bearing Registration No. 3/SIB/Package Tea/1998 dated 27.4.1998. 3. In this proceeding, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28.6.2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals) [Annexure-U], the follow up order dated 29.10.2004 of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Jorhat (Annexure-T) and the consequential Assessment Order dated 29th October 2004 of the Assistant Commissioner, whereby the petitioner is held liable to pay Rs. 4,67,048/- as differential duty for package tea cleared during 2.6.1998 to 28.2.1999....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice dated 1049 dated 9.11.1998 are not sustainable. The Counsel also submits that through a purported Review made by the Commissioner, the Commissioner (Appeals) couldn't have indirectly disturbed the final order of the Joint Commissioner (Tech.) through the impugned order on 28.6.2002 (Annexure-U). 4.3 The learned Counsel points out that the impugned order of 28.6.2002 of the Commissioner (Appeals) was an ex parte order where no opportunity was afforded to the aggrieved petitioner and the consequential order of 29.10.2004 (Annexure-T) of the Assistant Commissioner too was passed without issuing any notice to the petitioner and accordingly Mr. Kejriwal submits that the said order(s) are unsustainable in law. 5.1 Ms. R. Bora, learned C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....declaring that the petitioner is not entitled to exemption of Central Excise duty under Notification No. 8/98 and direction was issued for recovery of duty at the prevailing rate. 7. From the materials in the case record, it is apparent that the order of the Joint Commissioner (Tech) on 29.7.1998, whereby the petitioner's unit was held eligible for the exemption benefits on clearance made between June to August 1998, had attained finality since no challenge was made to the said finding of the Joint Commissioner. As the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was merely a consequential, the original order of the Joint Commissioner (Tech), in my view couldn't have been indirectly disturbed by the Commissioner, Excise by reviewing the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons, the Collector (Appeals) could not have considered an Appeal or Revision against the order of the Commissioner, Central Excise who is not subordinate to the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the order passed on 28.6.2002 by the Commissioner (Appeals), in pursuant to the exercise of Review power by the Commissioner, Central Excise, in my view was, inconsistent with the hierarchial structure of the authorities under the Department. 10. Although it is averred in the counter affidavit that notice of the proceeding before the impugned order was passed on 29.10.2004 by the Assistant Commissioner was issued, nothing is brought on record to show that such notice was actually served on the assessee. On the contrary, it is the specific stand....