2004 (6) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anuary to May, 99). The learned Counsel has disputed the validity of the impugned order before me mainly on two grounds; firstly that both the show cause notices demanding the duty under Rule 96ZP(3) of the Rules were not issued by a competent officer. Secondly, that no penalty and interest could be imposed on the appellant under sub-rule (1)(A) of Rule 96ZP, when duty had been demanded under sub-rule (3) of Rule 96ZP. The impugned order according to the Counsel on these two grounds is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned JDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. He has contended that the Superintendent who issued both the show cause notices was competent to issue the show cause notices and that the Board's....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner, while the other dated 9-7-99 was answerable to the Joint Commissioner. But the bare perusal of the Board's Circular 299/15/97-CX., dated 27-2-97 shows that the Superintendent of Central Excise was not competent to issue these show cause notices which was made answerable to the Additional Commissioner and Joint Commissioner respectively. Only the Assistant Commissioner could issue the notices. The Board's Circular is certainly binding on the Department and it could not be ignored by the officers/officials of the Department. The Superintendent was not at all competent to issue the show cause notices in question. He had in fact no power to act and issue show cause notices in question. That being so, the proceedings taken on the s....