AGK AGK AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2002 The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune - I Commissionerate ..Applicant. V/s. M/s.Telco Limited ..Respondent. Mrs.S.V. Bharucha for the Applicant. Mr.V. Sridharan i/by Mulla & Mulla & C.B. & C. for the Respondent. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 14TH OCTOBER, 2008. P.C. : 1. This application was admitted on 27-4-2005 on the following questions of law : 1. Whether the tribunal was right in law in deciding the matter on the question of jurisdiction alone without going into the merits of the case ? 2. Whether the tribunal was right in law in holding that the Collector had exceeded his jurisdiction particularly in view of the fact that even though the show cause notice was issued by the Superintendent, the Order in Original passed by the Collector had confined itself to a period of six months for which period Superintendent / Assistant Commissioner is competent to issue / adjudicate show cause notice ? 3. Whether the CEGAT was right in law in setting aside the order of the Collector without demolishing his findings that the assessee’s rights have not been infringed by the issue of a demand letter dated 29-3-1989 by the Superintendent, especially when they have been afforded opportunity to explain and argue their contentions both in writing and in personal hearing for which he has drawn support from Basti Sugar Mills Co. Limited V/s. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (43) ELT - 766 (T) ? 2. It is an admitted position that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the assessee’s own case reported in 2003 (11) SCC 193 (Collector of Central Excise V/s. Telco Limited), the assessee is entitled to succeed on merits. Therefore, the questions raised in this appeal have become academic, so far as the assessee in the present case is concerned. 3. In this view of the matter, since the questions raised have become academic, no useful purpose would be served by calling for the statement of the case. 4. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No costs. D.K. DESHMUKH, J. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.