2020 (7) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in the manufacture of Sterilised Black Pepper and was a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU). Subsequently, petitioner applied for de-bonding the 100% EOU. As a condition for granting permission to de-bond, petitioner was asked to pay the Central Excise duties on the stock of unused packing materials. The amounts were remitted and the final order of de-bonding was issued on 18.11.1998. Later, on the assumption that the petitioner had cleared pepper to the Domestic Tariff Area during the period 12.06.1998 to 09.11.1998 without paying the applicable duty, Ext.P2 show cause notice was issued requiring payment of the duty demanded therein. The show cause notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner (Customs) invoking power under Section 28 of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... recourse to a specific provision, in spite of the impugned order having been passed by invoking power under the Central Excise Act. 3. Heard Sri.Kuryan Thomas, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Preetha S.Nair, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Board of Excise. 4. Ext.P7 is assailed mainly on the ground that, by dismissing the appeal on the specious reasoning of the provisions under which the appeal was filed being vague, the fourth respondent had abdicated the appellate power vested in that authority. It is contended that the illegal action of the fourth respondent resulted in the petitioner's contentions raised in the appeal, both legal and factual, remaining unanswered. It is pointed out that the order appealed agai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....peal is filed should be mentioned. But having accepted the appeal on file and proceeded to hear the appeal on merits, the fourth respondent should not have rejected the appeal on the premise that the provisions quoted therein are vague. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the best course of action would have been to relegate the appeal to the appropriate authority in the Central Excise Commissionerate. 7. Even though the learned Standing Counsel vehemently contended that the fourth respondent had decided the appeal on merits, the findings in Ext.P7 do not support that contention. As far as the legal contention of the notice being time barred is concerned, all that is stated in Ext.P7 is that in the impugned or....