QUALITY EXPORTS AND CHEMICALS Vs. CEGAT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are partnership concern engaged in manufacturing of menthol and DMO and are registered with the Central Excise Department for the same. On 12-7-1995 the Central Excise Officers inspected the premises of the petitioners and found that the petitioners were clandestinely clearing the excisable goods manufactured by them and there was excess stock of finished goods which was not accounted for in their books. The department issued notices proposing to raise a demand of Rs. 53,55,862.15 paise as central excise duty on clearing of goods valued at Rs. 2,71,54,179.00 without paying excise duty, proposing to demand central excise duty of Rs. 33,22,722.00 on the basis of assumption of abstract of menthol produced and cleared by the petitioners during June and July, 1995 and further calling upon them to show cause why proposed penalty be not levied. The Adjudicating authority passed various orders whereby the goods worth Rs. 99,39,334.00 seized from the petitioners on 12-7-1995 were directed to be confiscated, demand of duty of Rs. 53,55,862.00 was confirmed, penalty of Rs. 55,00,000 was imposed on the petitioners and further penalty of Rs. 10 lacs each were imposed on Sri Mukul Gupta partner of M/s. Q.F.C. and on Smt. Bandana Gupta and Smt. Veena Gupta partners of M/s. Quality Chemicals and M/s. Flavour and their units under Section 209-A of the Act and a penalty of Rs. 10 lacs was imposed on one Alok Kumar Tewari proprietor of M/s. West Roadways under Section 209A. Against the orders passed by the Adjudicating authority appeals were filed which were dismissed by Respondent No. 1, Customs, Excise and Gold (Control), Appellate Tribunal New Delhi vide order dated 14-5-1999 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Thereafter the petitioners moved various applications under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act for rectification of the mistake in the order passed under sub-section (1). These applications were originally heard by a Bench comprising of two members. There was difference of opinion between the members who passed the orders dated 27-9-1999. Thereafter the matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal who passed the order, dated 25-1-2000. In view of the majority view of the Tribunal the rectification of mistake applications were rejected by the Tribunal.

(2.) Earlier Writ Petition No. 152 of 2000 was filed by the petitioner with the prayer (i) to quash the order dated 25-1-2000 read with order dated 27-8-1999 passed by the Tribunal on rectification application and the order dated 14-5-1999 dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioners, (ii) remand the matter to Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh without pressing for demand of adjudged amount or in the alternative remand the matter to the Commissioner. That writ petition was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 17-5-2000 as contained in Annexure-A8. The petition was partly allowed and matter was sent back to the Tribunal with direction that it will decide the appeal afresh by giving finding on each ground taken in the memo of appeal and pressed before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal redecided the appeal by judgment and order dated 15-9-2000 [2001 (135) E.L.T. 430 (T)] served on petitioner on 20-10-2000.

(3.) Petitioner feeling aggrieved by above order dated 15-9-2000 has filed the present Writ petition. Sri A.P. Mathur, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shishir Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent have been heard. It is submitted by Sri Mathur that impugned order is not sustainable under law and is liable to be quashed.