Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
M/S. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs Cce, Bolpur on 4 May, 2001
ORDER
Smt. Archana Wadhwa
1. This is an application fled under the provision of section 35C(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellants have prayed for review of order No. A-94-95 dt. 23.1.2001 passed by the Tribunal vide which the quantum of personal penalties imposed upon them was reduced to 25% in each case.
2. Shri R.N. Das, ld.sr.adv. appearing for the appellant fairly admits that there is no provision for review of the Tribunal's order by the Tribunal itself. However, he submits that the present application should be taken as rectification of mistake application, inasmuch as according to Shri Das some of the pleas taken by them in their memo of appeal were not considered by the Tribunal.
3. After hearing the ld. DR we find that though the appellant has taken the plea of jurisdiction of Asstt. Commissioner to decide the cases in their memo of appeal, but the same has not been argued at the time of hearing of the appeal. Nevertheless in the interest of justice we have considered the said plea now and find that the same does not have any merits. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Jaipur v. Whilwara Spinners-2000(38)RLT 600(CEGAT-LB), has held that the Asstt. Commissioner has unlimited monetary powers for issuing demand notice for the normal period of limitation. As such the appellants' contention that the Asstt. Commissioner having jurisdiction to decide the present matter does not have any merits. The same is accordingly rejected.
4. As regards the appellants' contention that no penalty was imposable under section 11AB inasmuch as the same was not in existence during the period involved in the appeals, we find from the orders of the Asstt. Commissioner that the penalties have been imposed under the provisions of rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules and no penalty has been imposed under the provision of section 11AB. The appellants' contention is therefore un-founded.
5. The other grounds taken by the appellants is reiteration of the grounds of appeal urged earlier and considered by the Tribunal in passing the present order. It is well-settled that the review of the order cannot be sought under the garb of rectification of mistake application. No merits are accordingly found in the said application. The same is accordingly rejected.
(Pronounced)