2007 (2) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t of demand by the Department on the specific understanding, in writing, that they would not be presented without the written consent of the drawer/petitioner. It was also stated that the petitioner's appeal by special leave against the assessment by the respondent was heard by the Supreme Court on 30-1-04 when the same was admitted and was directed to be placed for final hearing in March, 2004. On these grounds, the notice had resisted the petitioner's liability. 3.After hearing materials on record, the trial Court issued the summons and decided to proceed with the matter. 4.Mr. Rajesh Chugh, learned Counsel urged that in the interregnum, on 29-7-04, the petitioner's appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court [2004 (170) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.)].....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te finished goods. Simply because both the factories may have common boundaries that will not make it one factory. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be well-founded and likewise, the view taken by the Commissioner, Central Excise. Accordingly, we allow both these appeals, set aside the order of the Tribunal passed on June 7, 2002 as well as the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi-III on September 28, 2001 in both the appeal. No order as to costs." 6.Learned Counsel contended that in view of the above judgment, the foundation of the complaint itself did not survive and ends of justice require that the complaint proceedings ought to be quashed. 7.Learned Counsel....