TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Show Cause Notices was issued to Shri. B. S. Garg Proprietor of ISAP demanding duty amount of Rs. 1,64,38,943/- and three others who acted as brokers for selling the goods and those who actually sold the goods under cover of their invoices. The details of parties to whom SCN was issued were as under: S. No Name of party Nature of involvement in the alleged offence 1 Shri. B. S. Garg Proprietor of M/s Indian Steel and Allied Products. The manufacturer alleged to have manufactured the goods clandestinely 2 Shri. R. Murali Broker for selling the goods 3 Shri. Chander Sekhar Sharma Person who sold the goods to consumers under their invoices 4 R. Sanjay Kumar Ojha Person who sold the goods to consumers under their invoices 3.2. On adjudication of SCN issued to ISAP, the Commissioner confirmed demand of duty for Rs.1,96,425/- against ISAP and imposed a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- under 173Q of Central Excise Rules, 1944 by order dated 27-04-2004. The Rest of the proceedings were dropped. 4.1 Another SCN was issued to Indira Ispat Udyog (IIU) demanding duty demand of Rs. 2,20,41,065/-and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 Shrri. Ranjith Kumar Ojha Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by GIU 11 Shri Ravi Kant Sharma Acted as broker and Issued Bills for selling goods manufactured by GIU 5.2 On adjudication of SCN issued to GIU, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated against M/s GIU. The order is silent on proceedings against other noticees. 6. The Central Board of Excise and Customs exercising powers under section 35 E (1) of central Excise Act as it stood then reviewed the orders 1/2004, 2/2004 and 3/2004 dated 27-04-2004 issued by the Commissioner and by Review Order No.52-R/2005 dt. 23.3.2005, 88-R/2005 dated 19.4.2005 and 53-R/2005 dated 23.3.2005, directed the Commissioner as under (extracted from order relating to ISAP) : 5.20 In the instant case, evidences have been established by way of weighment certificates, tabulations prepared by the bill traders/brokers (were confronted with details of transaction recovered from Kerala buyers for getting statements which also enable to identify the manufacturer whose goods had been cleared under their bills (i.e. Bill Traders Bill) and consumption of excess power. Most importantly, it has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise in this order. (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) after the expiry of one year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. (4) Where in pursuance of an order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) to the adjudicating authority, such application shall be heard by the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, as if such application were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regarding appeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 35B shall, so far as may be, apply to such ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing decisions in this matter: (i) CCE Vs. L.P. Shenoy-2003 (162) ELT 297 (Tri) (ii) CCE Vs. N. A. Jayaram-2003 (161) ELT 412 (Tri-Bang) 12. We have considered arguments on both sides. We note that in the adjudication order passed against Goyal Ispat Udyog., there is no order passed in respect of proceedings initiated against the co-noticees. So strictly speaking there is no order to be appealed against. 13. In the case of co-noticees, in the case of other two manufacturers, the orders were to the effect that rest of the proceedings were dropped. It appears from the adjudication order that the copies of the order were not endorsed to the respondents against whom applications are now filed. This aspect was not argued by either side. This does not appear to be relevant because as per section 35E (4) applications were to be filed within three months from the date on which CBEC had passed the order under section 35E (1). So there is delay as mentioned in the application whether or not the order has been communicated to the respondents herein. 14. These applications are against new parties after considerable lapse of time of more than 6 years over and above the time limi....