TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 620
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r No.40080 of 2013 dated 27.2.2013 in Appeal No.E/215/2011. 2. The Review Applications have been filed by the assessee viz., V.K.Palappa Nadar Firm challenging the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in C.M.A.SR Nos.40653 and 40653 of 2014 alongwith petitions to condone the delay in filing such civil miscellaneous appeals as against the order passed by the CESTAT in Miscellaneous Order No.643 of 2009 dated 16.12.2009 and the Final Order No.40080 of 2013 dated 27.2.2013. 3. Though two different Firms are involved in the proceedings, since the issue revolves around production and clearance of branded Chewing Tobacco under the guise of unbranded Chewing Tobacco, both the civil miscellaneous appeals and the revision applications are taken up for common disposal. 4. It transpires that on the strength of intelligence report of DGCEI, the officers attached to Headquarters Preventive Unit visited the units of the assessees on 8.6.2001, and found that there were suppression of production of Chewing Tobacco falling under the overhead No.2404.41 41, illicit removal of the same under the guise of unbranded Chewing Tobacco without payment of duty. After having inspection of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....09A of the Central Excise Rules read with Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules. Similarly, a demand of duty to the tune of Rs. 38,78,141/- was made against the assessee viz., V.K.Palappa Nadar Firm alongwith a equal penalty and a further penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule 173Q and rule 25 of Central Excise Rules. 6. It appears that while passing the order, the assessment officer took into account the escapement of excise duty by way of not maintaining the statutory accounts and only maintaining private accounts and having recovered certain incriminating materials and material objects and also private accounts that were maintained and also on the statement of one P.K.Rathinavelsamy, accountant, the Additional Commissioner assessed the duty and penalty as against the assessees. 7. It appears that the matters were taken up in appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who passed an order on 13.4.2005. As against that order, the matter was taken up to CESTAT, which by Final Order Nos.1419 to 1421 of 2005 dated 6.10.2005, remanded the matters to the original authority for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to the assessees. Thereafter, on the applications filed by the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t applicable to the nationalised banks and that, therefore, such appeal would not be maintainable. This Court made a distinction between "civil court" and "court" and expanded the scope of Section 14 stating that any authority or tribunal having the trappings of a court would be a "court" within the meaning of Section 14. It must be remembered that the word "court" refers only to a proceeding which proves to be abortive. In this context, for Section 14 to apply, two conditions have to be met. Firtst, the primary proceeding must be a suit, appeal or application filed in a civil court. Second, it is only when it comes to excluding time in an abortive proceeding that the word "court" has been expanded to include proceedings before tribunals." 10. Therefore, the word word "court" refers only to a proceeding which proves to be abortive and as per Section 14 of the Limitation Act, it must satisfy that the primary proceeding must be a suit, appeal or application filed in a civil court and secondly, it is only when it comes to excluding time in an abortive proceeding that the word "court" has been expanded to include proceedings before tribunals. In that context, the learned counsel sough....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80 of the typed set of papers, the acknwoeldgment made by the assessee for receipt of several documents have been shown which clearly shows that all the documents that were relied upon for adjudication were received by the assessee during February 2002 and it appears that some documents were missing, but, however, such docuemnts have not been relied upon in the adjudication adverse to the interest of the assessee. Moreover, looking into the case from its threshold it is clear that there is a non-maintenance of the accounts in respect of certain quantity of the raw materials, finished product and non-finished product for which assessments were made and also that has been recovered and private accounts is maintained instead of maintaining regular accounts. So only on technicality, the assessee is fighting the matter. Moreover, even the order was passed in due course of principles of natural justice viz., show cause notice had been issued which was responded seeking certain documents and those documents were supplied and only thereafter, the order has been passed imposing penalty as indicated above. 13. Admittedly, the issue is a long drawn one. It is pending for more than 15 years. ....