M.P. FOREST DEPARTMENT Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
LAWS(CE)-1991-9-29
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on September 23,1991

M.P. Forest Department Appellant
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

G.P. Agarwal, Member (J) - (1.) BEING aggrieved with the impugned Detention Order issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise Division, Bhilai, the appellants have filed their present appeal.
(2.) AT the initial stage, when the present appeal was received in the Registry it was noticed by the Registry that since the present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Detention Order, issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Bhilai, in exercise of his powers under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules which inter alia provides that when the duty leviable on any goods is owing from or by any person, all excisable goods, and all materials and preparations from which any such goods are made, and all plant, machinery etc. for making or manufacturing or producing any such goods ordering that the entire stock of excisable goods lying in their (Appellant's) factory on the date of this Order is hereby detained for the purpose of recovery of duty amounting to Rs. 1,64,157.98 adjudicated as payable by the appellants by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, vide his Adjudication Order -in -Original No. 11/80/T.I.68 dated 31st March, 1981 remained unpaid despite repeated requests by the Department. Accordingly, the appeal papers as well as the demand draft for Rs. 200/ -received with the appeal as fees was returned to the appellants by the Registry, vide its letter dated 7th November, 1990 (F. No. 1/Misc/89 -CR). However, it appears that on receipt of the said appeal papers back, the appellants have filed their present Misc. Application No. 187/91 -D requesting that the appeal so filed earlier and returned by the Registry be admitted for hearing as maintainable.
(3.) WE have heard Shri N.L. Srivastava, learned Consultant for the appellants and Smt. JMS Sundaram, learned SDR for the Respondents. At the outset, when the Bench asked as to how the present appeal which was returned by the Registry earlier, vide its letter dated 7th November, 1990 is maintainable against the impugned Detention Order C. No. V(68) 15 -21/80/Adj/210 dated 11 -12/7/1988, issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise Division, Bhilai, for recovery of the duty which was adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, vide his Order -in -Original No. 11/80/T.1.68 dated 31st March, 1981, he instead of showing any provision of law admitted that the said Adjudication Order -in -Original No. 11/80/T.1.68 dated 31st March, 1981 adjudicating the demand of duty of Rs. 1,64,157.98 was passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, and the appeal against the said Order lay to the Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, and therefore, appeal was filed against the said Adjudication Order before the Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, but till date the appellants have not received any Order from the Board. He highlighted that all these facts have been stated in the present Misc. Application in paragraph "2(i) and (v)". However, he added that the said Adjudication Order -in -Original dated 31st March, 1981, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, was not legal, as no duty was payable by the appellants on sawn timber and sawn wood. In the light of these submissions, on a query from the Bench, as to how the present appeal is maintainable against the impugned Detention Order, more particularly when according to the appellants they have already filed the appeal before the Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, against the said Adjudication Order -in -Original dated 31st March, 1981, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, and the same is pending (a fact not admitted by the other side), Shri N.L. Srivastava, learned Consultant, had no answer. In reply, Smt. JMS Sun -daram, learned SDR, without admitting that the appellants have filed any appeal before the Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, and the same is pending, submitted that according to the appellants themselves the appeal is pending before the Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, against the said Adjudication Order -in -Original dated 31st March, 1981, passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, any recovery proceedings started in execution of the said Order of Adjudication, in the present case under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, cannot be made a subject -matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. In other words, her submission was that the present appeal is not maintainable and it was rightly returned to the appellants by the Registry.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.