TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter was adjourned to 10-6-2011. During the three months period from 25-3-11, the appellant did not engage any other counsel as submitted today. Same Counsel (Shri Ronny John) appearing on 10-6-11 again requested for adjournment. The case was again adjourned to 29-8-11. When prayer for adjournment came today, we enquired from ld. Counsel whether he is on record. He agreed to that. 1.2 We noticed that the Vakalatnama filed by ld. Counsel was not executed in accordance with the law laid down by Apex Court in Uday Shankar Triyar case - AIR 2006 SC 269, followed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Deepak Khosla case - 2010 (251) E.L.T. 524 (Del.). As writ of mandamus has been issued by Hon'ble High Court and particularly subordinate cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....v. Union of India - (2005) 6 SCC 344 (para-31) holding that adjournment is not the right of the litigant, whether it is the 1st, 2nd or 3rd adjournment, is a matter to be decided by the Court looking into Just Cause, peculiar facts and circumstances, if any, to entertain prayer for adjournment. While granting adjournment, the courts have to look seriously to the legislative intent so that the other side does not suffer. Being guided by such principle of law laid down by Apex Court, prayer for adjournment made orally by ld. Counsel is rejected since no good cause exists to entertain such prayer which otherwise would be abuse of process of law. We, therefore, proceeded for hearing of Stay Application which is already one year old and has caus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... provided and invoices were issued for the same. 2.4 Further submission of ld. Counsel was that when the appellant is not a manufacturer, there should not be insistence for pre-deposit since adjudication fails. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Gillete India Ltd. in the batch of appeals disposed by final order No. 261-263/2011 on 25-1-2011 [2011 (272) E.L.T. 154 (Tribunal)] to submit that area based exemption benefit notification entitles the appellant to get duty exemption. He also relied on the Circular No. 908/28/2009-CX, dated 23-5-2009 and submits that peripheral activities also entitles the appellant to the area based exemption scheme. 3.1 On the other hand ld. DR submits that the appellant is a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the activity carried out by appellant and whether that shall amount to manufacture. Reading para 2 of the adjudication order, we find that the authority brought out the methodology of the working of appellant and he recorded in para 3 and para 4 of the order about the depositions of representative of Colgate-Palmolive and one of the partner, Shri Aman Kansal of the appellant. The adjudicating authority examined the activity of appellant under the purview of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Third Schedule of Central Excise Tariff with intention of the party to the contract. He was of the view that the appellant is covered by the definition of "manufacture" and brought that to it to the fold of law. While doing so, he also e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ertain veracity of pleading of no manufacture. 6. We tried to examine whether the appellant can get area based exemption benefit. At this stage, primarily we are guided by the adjudication finding in para 35 of adjudication order which brought out that the appellant when failed to claim the exemption fulfill conditions of the exemption notification, that was deniable. 7. We tried to find out whether the adjudication was barred by limitation when that was also pleaded in the course of hearing. While there is claim of no manufacture by the appellant under Central Excise Act, 1944, there was manufacture plea before same authority for area based exemption and also before State Authorities of Himachal Pradesh to enjoy benefit of ....