CASUAL PLUS Vs. C.C.E., LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel says that during pendency of the appeal before learned Commissioner, no power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 can be exercised by Revisional Authority since Controversy was resolved by Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Union of India vs. Inani Carriers reported in : 2009 (13) STR 230 (Raj.) following that decision, the Tribunal in the case of Shiva Builders vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh I reported in : 2010 (20) STR 356(Tri -Del.) has held in the same line. The Order of the Tribunal was confirmed in STA No. 51/10 by Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court against the appeal of Revenue and decision of Hon'ble High Court is reported in 2011 'TIOL' 249 'HC' P & H' ST. When the law is well settled, the impugned order is not sustainable.

(2.) SHRI Sudhir Malhotra, learned Counsel also points out that the order of adjudication was passed on 31.7.09. Being aggrieved by the order, the appellant went to the Appellate Commissioner and that authority passed an order on 31.8.2010. Against that order, the appellant came to Tribunal and Tribunal in appellant's case No. ST/1672/2010 waived the requirement of pre -deposit and the matter was remanded to the commissioner (Appeals). This was by order dated 8.7.2011 of the Tribunal. During pendency of the matter before learned Commissioner (Appeals) notice under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 was issued on 22.3.11 by Revisional Authority. A copy of the notice is available at page 92 of the appeal folder. Para 12 of the notice indicates how the proceeding before reviewing authority emanated. Para 18 indicates demand of Rs. 7,78,560/ - is proposed which was the subject matter of allegation in adjudication and awaiting the appeal decision by learned Commissioner (Appeals) upon remand of the matter by Tribunal on 8.7.2011.

(3.) IN view of aforesaid observation made preliminarily there shall be waiver of pre -deposit during pendency of the appeal.