L.M.L. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 September, 1997

0
39
Allahabad High Court
L.M.L. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 25 September, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1999 (105) ELT 552 All
Bench: R Gulati, O Jain

ORDER

1. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The only relief sought by the petitioner is that a writ, order or direction be issued to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division-II, Kanpur to finalise the adjudication proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 21-5-1996 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad. It appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the earlier order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Respondent No. 2 with the following directions :

“Without prejudice to the merit of the case, the order appealed against the set aside for non-observance of the principles of natural justice by not issuing a show cause notice and personal hearing required to be given. The case is remanded the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Div. II, Kanpur for de novo adjudication by proper officer after following the established procedure.”

In paragraph – 22 of the counter affidavit, it has been averred inter alia that proceedings for adjudication and personal hearing were fixed for 29-7-1997 in pursuance to the show cause notice dated 2-2-1996 issued by the Commissioner and also a show cause notice dated 8-7-1996 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Respondent No. 2.

3. Learned Counsel for the parties were not in a position to throw any light as to what happened on 29-7-1997 when the case was fixed for adjudication and personal hearing. However, Shri Shishir Kumar learned Standing Counsel states that if the adjudication is still pending, the respondents will take all necessary steps to finalise the adjudication proceedings as directed by the appellate authority and the proceedings will be finalised expeditiously provided the petitioner extends its co-operation without creating any hurdle or seeking unnecessary adjournments. In view of the above statement coming from bar which is very fair, we do not consider it necessary to keep this writ petition pending any more. However, we direct the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-II, Kanpur, the second respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Allahabad by his order dated 21-5-1996 as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months, a certified copy of this order is produced before him by the petitioner as suggested by the learned Counsels for the parties. It is expected that the petitioner will co-operate with the Assessing Authority in the finalisation of its adjudication proceedings aforesaid.

4. No other submission was urged before us, on behalf of the petitioner.

5. Subject to the above, the writ petition shall stand disposed of.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here