1995 (1) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Deputy Director, Anti-Evasion in issuing show cause notice prior to 1986.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Director (Publication), Central Excise, New Delhi, regarding clandestine removal of goods without payment of Central Excise duty. The Director demanded duty and imposed a penalty on the appellants. The preliminary objection raised by the advocate for the appellants was on the jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Director, Anti-Evasion prior to 1986. It was argued that the Deputy Director did not have the powers of an Assistant Collector of Central Excise, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio. Reference was made to a previous case where it was held that the Assistant Director of Anti-Evasion did not have jurisdiction to deal with Central Excise matters without specific empowerment. The advocate contended that the burden of proof lies on the department to show the officer's authority, which was not done in this case.

The respondent, while acknowledging the previous decision, argued that since the show cause notice was issued by the Deputy Director from the office of the Director of Anti-Evasion, the burden was on the party to prove the officer's exclusive connection with the Anti-Evasion Department. The appellant's advocate maintained that the onus was on the department to demonstrate the officer's empowerment, citing specific notifications appointing officers in distinct directorates. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and referred to relevant observations from the previous case, emphasizing the need for specific empowerment to exercise certain powers. It was concluded that the Deputy Director, Anti-Evasion was not empowered to issue the show cause notice during the relevant period, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings invalid in law.

In light of the submissions and case law, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice issued by the Deputy Director, Anti-Evasion lacked legal validity due to the absence of empowerment during the relevant period. Relying on the precedent, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court at the conclusion of the hearing.