2002 (1) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of seized goods and auto, imposition of penalties and duty.
2. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate the case.
3. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) regarding jurisdiction.
4. Adjudication by Joint Commissioner.
5. Appeal rejection by Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Violation of principles of natural justice and competence of Superintendent of Central Excise.
7. Competence of Joint Commissioner to adjudicate cases involving fraud and suppression.

Analysis:

1. The appellants were issued a show cause notice regarding the seizure of goods without proper documentation and shortage of finished goods at their premises. The Assistant Commissioner ordered the confiscation of goods and auto with an option for release on payment of fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the case due to jurisdictional issues, leading to confirmation of earlier findings by the Joint Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected subsequent appeals, resulting in the current appeal by the appellants against the order.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the objection to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner based on the allegations of fraud and non-levy of excise duty. The case was remanded for adjudication by the competent authority as per Circular No. 299/15/97-CX. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the previous findings, leading to another appeal by the party.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order-in-original passed by the Joint Commissioner, rejecting the appeal filed by the party. The current appeal by the appellants raised concerns about the violation of natural justice principles and the competence of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue the show cause notice.

4. The appeal argued that the original authority did not provide a personal hearing, violating natural justice principles. However, the lower appellate authority found that the written defense of the appellants was considered adequately. The issue of competence of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue the notice was also raised, but the objection was not admitted due to procedural reasons.

5. The party's objection regarding the competence of the Assistant Commissioner was accepted earlier, leading to remand for re-adjudication. However, subsequent proceedings did not allow for the re-consideration of this objection. The Joint Commissioner's adjudication was found to be beyond their competence as per the Board circular, necessitating a remand to the Addl. Commissioner for a fresh review.

6. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside due to the lack of competence in adjudicating cases involving fraud and suppression. The matter was remanded to the Addl. Commissioner for a fair hearing, ensuring the appellants' rights are upheld in the process.