COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. BISHT ELECTRONICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for early hearing on the ground that the questions of law in issue already stand determined by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India vs Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 231 ELT 3. In view of the averments made in the application, the application is allowed.

(2.) APPLICATION stands disposed of. CEAC No. 16/2006

(3.) THE revenue on 22.09.2010 moved an application for early hearing being CM No. 17155/2010 on the ground that the questions of law framed were covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) as is mentioned in the very beginning of our judgment. Notices in the application had been issued and several attempts were made to serve the respondent. Since the respondent could not be served by ordinary process, an application was moved by the revenue for substituted service under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ,,Code). THE said application was numbered as CM No. 3377/2011. Order on that application was passed on 21.02.2011. THE revenue was given leave to serve the respondent by way of publication. In the order dated 26.08.2011, it is noted that the respondent stands served by way of publication. THE matter was posted for hearing today, i.e., 20.09.2011. THEre is no appearance on behalf of the assessee even today. It is in these circumstances, we have proceeded to decide the questions of law framed.