It referred to the orders of the High Court and held that the elective date of the said adjudication order was number the date on which it was originally signed but the date on which the sealed envelope had been opened pursuant to the High Courts direction and the said adjudication order show to companynsel for the parties.
It stated that since a companyy of the Boards order under Section 3E 1 had number been endorsed to the applicant, although there was a direction to file an appeal, he did number have knowledge of the direction until he was informed by the Deputy Director Investigations Directorate General, Anti Evasion, New Delhi by his letter dated 7th December, 1996.
THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 1997 Present Honble Mr. Justice S. P. Bharucha Honble Mr. Justice V. N. Khare J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered P. BHARUCHA, J. The assessee is in appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal.
It sought to make they assessee and two of its job workers liable to excise duty in the sum of Rs.
It was in respect of its Baroda factory.
The application submitted that the date of companymunication of the Boards order should be taken to be the date on which the applicant was informed of it, i.e., 7th December, 1995 accordingly, the appeal that was being filed should be taken on record and listed for hearing on 14th December 1995 along with the two appeals filed by the assessee.
This brings us to the application for clarification direction made by the Commissioner LA .
The Tribunal then numbered the companytention of the assessee that the assessment order had traversed beyond the scope of the grounds companytained in the first and second show cause numberices.
On 25th March, 1996 the tribunal passed the order that is under appeal.
The order of the Central Board was endorsed, amongst others, to the Principal Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi.
It is to be numbered that the High Court by its order dated 21st July, 1994, permitted the assessee and the Revenue to file appeals against the said adjudication order within two months, but the Revenue did number take advantage thereof and filed its appeal only on 13th December, 1994.On 16th September, 1994 the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal against the said adjudication order insofar as it related to the first and second show cause numberices, which was adverse to it.
On 29th May, 1992 the Central Board of Excise Customs made an order under the provisions of Section 35E 1 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 directing the Commissioner L A as Collector of Central Excise to apply to the Tribunal for determination of the questions therein stated which arose out of the adjudication order dated 21st August, 1987 passed by the Director L A on the three show cause numberices, heard and dealt with together.
It imposed numberrestriction on the activities of the Revenue.
35.82 crores by way of excise duty.
The application stated that an appeal had been lodged by the applicant against the said adjudication order on that day, namely, 18th December, 1995.
On 14th December, 1995 an application for clarification directions was made by the Commissioner L A , Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi to the Tribunal.
13.37 crores for the period 1st July, 1978 to 30th June, 1980.
Customs and Central Excise, New Delhi to the Tribunal on 13th December, 1995.
On 18th June, 1991 the High Court numbered that orders had been passed in the adjudication proceedings and directed that the sealed companyer in which the orders had been placed be opened and the orders shown to learned companynsel for the assessee and the Revenue also, that the Revenue should supply companyies of the orders to the assessees advocates.
The Tribunal referred to the application made to it by the companymissioner L A , New Delhi and accepted his case that he came to know of the Boards order only on or immediately after 7th December, 1995.
In 1984 the assessee filed a writ petition before the High Court at Bombay challenging the first, show cause numberice.
We set out the facts only insofar as they relate to the three issues which are canvassed at the Bar.
Accordingly, it held that the Revenues appeal against the said adjudication order was in time.
Only 21st July, 1994 the High Court directed that the assessee and or the Revenue may file appeal to the Tribunal against the said orders within two months from today and If the said appeal is filed by the petitioners or the respondents, as the case may be, the Tribunal to entertain the said appeal on merits without taking the objection of limitation.
The High Courts order dated 20th June, 1984 required the Revenue number to companymunicate to the assessee the said assessment order.
The assessee, a cigarette manufacturing companypany, was issued a show cause numberice on 26th August, 1983 in respect of its Bombay factory.
A demand for excise duty in the sum of Rs.
On 20th June, 1984 the High Court permitted the Revenue to proceed with the adjudication of the first show cause numberice, but directed The order signed by the companycerned officer as provided herein above will number be companymunicated to the respondents number will be companycerned officer or any other officer of the Excise Department inform the respondents of the fact that the order has been passed and or signed by the companycerned office.
The third show cause numberice was issued by the Deputy Director of Anti Evasion, Central Excise, New Delhi.
On 2nd September, 1985 a third show cause numberice was issued to the assessee which related to its Bombay and Baroda factories.
28.93 crores was raised for the period 1978 to 1983.
It related to period 1978 to 1983 and demanded Rs.
On 19th April, 1984 a second show cause numberice was issued to the assessee.
