LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-52

RAM PARTAP Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On April 24, 2014
RAM PARTAP Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been visited with the consequences of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by cut of his pension by 30%, on account of his having performed quasi judicial functions and that too in conformity with the legal principle laid down by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CEGAT'), without there being any interim orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) THE petitioner retired from service, last holding the post of an Assistant Commissioner of the Department of Central Excise and Customs at Patiala, on 31.3.1994. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 17.4.1996, after two years of his demitting office. This charge-sheet is stated to have been withdrawn on account of lack of sanction from the competent authority and a fresh charge-sheet was issued on 16.3.1998. The factual matrix, which gave rise to the charge-sheet, arises on account of the adjudication by the petitioner of a dispute qua Classification Lists and consequent demand thereof. It is the case of the petitioner that Shri S.P. Srivastva, Commissioner-1, Central Excise, Chandigarh called him on 10.11.1993 and desired that all demand cases involving large amounts of Central Excise Duty should be adjudicated expeditiously, including the cases of M/s Pepsi Foods, Channo. The petitioner claims that there were various assesses engaged in the manufacture of steel products which is an excisable item under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff, 1985. As per the Department, these products were required to be classified as "flats" under sub-head 7211.19/7211.30 of the Central Excise Tariff, while, on the other hand, as per the assesses, it was required to be classified as "other bars and rods" under sub- head 7214.90. This controversy is stated to have been adjudicated in favour of the assessees by a Special Bench of CEGAT, New Delhi, in order dated 20.12.1990, which decision was circulated to all the Registrars, CEGAT, including at Chandigarh. The department, however, aggrieved of the same, preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no interim orders were granted. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, the petitioner pleads that his predecessor had also approved the Classification Lists, classifying the products in dispute as "other bars and rods", on 20.8.1992, and the petitioner, too, approved eight Price Lists, relating to different manufacturers, by order dated 29.3.1994.

(3.) THE stand of the petitioner is that the Circular in question dated 14.5.1992, prescribing the financial limits, read as under:-