ORDER

Shri G.A. Brahma Deva

1. These are five appeals filed by M/s. Disha & others against the common impugned order dated 30.7.97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore. Shri Aravind Datar learned Senior counsel along with Shri Rama Subramanyan Chartered Accountant submitted that the impugned order is bad in law. He submitted that Show-cause notice has proceeded to treat M/s PKI as principal and the assessee M/s Disha as an agent. In spite of this, duty was demanded from an agent. He contended that there is no charge in treating the assessee as related person as can be seen from the Show-cause notice as envisaged under Section 4(c) of the Act, but in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has proceeded to pass an order in treating the assessee as related person of PKL. Apart from these, two points, he pointed out that the demand raised by the Department was barred by time in as much as the entire activity of the appellant was known to the department.

2. Heard Smt Radha Arun, learned SDR for the Revenue.

3. On going through the impugned order we find that the Commissioner who adjudicated the proceedings has not quantified the duty amount. In other words, he has delegated the power to the Assistant Commissioner to quantify the duty amount. This is contrary to the provisions of law. Tribunal has been consistently taking the view that the Commissioner being an adjudicating authority cannot delegate such power to the subordinate authority. It is his bounden duty to quantify the duty while passing the impugned order. This view is strengthened by the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Davanagere Cotton Mills Ltd Vs Chairman, C.B.E&C reported in 1991 (55) (ELT) 295 (Kar) in which it was held that the adjudicating authority himself should quantify the duty as required by Section 11 A (2) In the facts and circumstances, since the Commissioner has not quantified the duty amount, we are the view that this matter will have to go back for reconsideration and for quantification. Accordingly we are remanding the matter to the jurisdiction of Commissioner to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law on providing an opportunity to the party. The party may make use of this oportunity and substantiate his claim during the readjudication proceedings. All the issues are kept open. Thus all these appeals are disposed off in the above terms.

4. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)