2004 (10) TMI 190

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ground that only a proper officer i.e. the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner is required to withdraw the facility and the Superintendent of Central Excise has no powers to withdraw the same and direct them to deposit the duty on consignment basis. Their plea has not been accepted. The learned Counsel submits that the demands are also time barred as it would have resulted in revenue neutrality and in this regard refers to the Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of C.Ex., Madras - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 251 (S.C.) and the following three judgments : (a)      Nityanand Nirmal v. CCE - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 522 (b)      CCE v. Mahavir Spinning Mills Lt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to a Larger Bench as in identical facts of the case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishna Engineering Works Ltd. v. UOI (supra) has held that the Superintendent does not have the powers to withdraw the fortnightly benefit of payment in terms of Rule 173 G(1)(e) and held it to be violative of Principles of Natural justice. The Tribunal, in the case of M/s. Parkins Textiles (P) Ltd. v. CCE, by Final Order No. 1631/2004, dated 19-10-2004, has applied the ratio of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Krishna Engineering Works (supra) and that of the Apex Court judgment in the case of T.N. Dadha Pharmaceuticals v. Collector of C. Ex., Madras (supra) and has allowed the appeal. The findings recorded in para 4 are repro....