ROYAL ELECTRONICS PVT LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, dated 26-8-1988 appropriating a sum of Rs. 50,000/- by enforcing the B-11 Bond executed by the appellant during the pendency of adjudication when the seized goods viz. 170 TV sets were released provisionally and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- imposed under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules.

(2.) When Shri Alimchandani, the learned Consultant for the appellant, initially started making submissions, I wanted him to clarify a doubt which I entertained while going through the papers before me. I questioned the learned Consultant as to how the present appeal is competent against an order forfeiting a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in enforcing a clause in the B-ll Bond which was executed by the appellant at the time when the goods were provisionally released, pending adjudication. Attention of the learned Consultant was also drawn to similar questions having been settled by the Tribunal in which a consistent view had been taken that forfeiture of a sum specified in a Bond executed by a party during the pendency of adjudication for failure to observe a certain condition would not be an order of adjudication appealable under the Act. The learned Consultant submitted that he has nothing to say in this regard.

(3.) THE operative portion of the impugned order relevant for purpose of deciding the issue with reference to the competence and maintainability of the appeal before a statutory Tribunal under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the 'Act' for short, may be extracted for purposes of convenience :