Collector of Central Excise Vs. Modern Mills Ltd.

Collector of Central Excise vs Modern Mills Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Nov 21, 1985

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/2436

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/2436
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On: Nov 21, 1985
Subject: Excise

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Excise

Key legal issue: Excise

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Collector of Central Excise

Respondent

Modern Mills Ltd.

Legal References

Reported In: (1986)(7)ECC7

Excerpt

.....collector of central excise, hubli. he allowed the appeal on two grounds. firstly, the collector (appeals) held that the proceedings leading to the adjudication were improper and not in compliance with the provisions of law. according to the facts of the case, the superintendent of central excise, hubli had issued a show cause notice dated 15-3-83 to the respondents. it would appear from the record that the assistant collector, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, directed withdrawal of the said show cause notice vide his order dated 7-11-83. however, the said assistant collector passed another order on 11-11-83 to the effect that his earlier order dated 7-11-83 was cancelled. among other points, the respondents challenged the order of the assistant collector before the collector (appeals) on the ground that the assistant collector had no power under the statute to cancel his own order as he had done in the present case. para 5 of the order of the learned collector (appeals) is relevant and sets out the legal position correctly. we agree with the finding of the collector (appeals) that having passed an order on an earlier date, it was not open to the assistant collector to cancel the said order and reopen the issue.2. in the appeal before us this, finding of the collector (appeals) has not been dealt with and therefore stands unchallenged. on this limited point alone, we find that the appeal preferred by the collector of central excise, belgaum cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected.3. shri tripathi, s.d.r., for the appellant collector has urged that the purported order dated 7-11-83 is no order at all in the eyes of law. it was therefore open to the assistant collector to cancel it and initiate fresh proceedings under the law. we are unable to accept this contention of the s.d.r. and reject the same outright. there is no provision in the central excises and salt act, 1944 under which an assistant collector, having passed an.....

Full Judgment

1. This is an appeal preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum challenging the legality and propriety of the order dated 19-11-84 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.

By the said order, the Collector (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order dated 4-6-84 passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Hubli. He allowed the appeal on two grounds. Firstly, the Collector (Appeals) held that the proceedings leading to the adjudication were improper and not in compliance with the provisions of law. According to the facts of the case, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Hubli had issued a show cause notice dated 15-3-83 to the respondents. It would appear from the record that the Assistant Collector, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case, directed withdrawal of the said show cause notice vide his order dated 7-11-83. However, the said Assistant Collector passed another order on 11-11-83 to the effect that his earlier order dated 7-11-83 was cancelled. Among other points, the respondents challenged the order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that the Assistant Collector had no power under the statute to cancel his own order as he had done in the present case. Para 5 of the order of the Learned Collector (Appeals) is relevant and sets out the legal position correctly. We agree with the finding of the Collector (Appeals) that having passed an order on an earlier date, it was not open to the Assistant Collector to cancel the said order and reopen the issue.

2. In the appeal before us this, finding of the Collector (Appeals) has not been dealt with and therefore stands unchallenged. On this limited point alone, we find that the appeal preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum cannot be sustained and deserves to be rejected.

3. Shri Tripathi, S.D.R., for the Appellant Collector has urged that the purported order dated 7-11-83 is no order at all in the eyes of law. It was therefore open to the Assistant Collector to cancel it and initiate fresh proceedings under the law. We are unable to accept this contention of the S.D.R. and reject the same outright. There is no provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 under which an Assistant Collector, having passed an order under the law, can cancel it and initiate fresh proceedings arising from the same show cause notice.

4. The S.D.R. argued the matter on merits but since we are inclined to reject the appeal on the substantive legal issue itself, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case.

5. In the result, the appeal fails and is rejected. Ordered in the open Court.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Collector of Central Excise vs Modern Mills Ltd. Same Subject Excise

Excise open court set aside E la