2005 (6) TMI 441 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) in case of seized goods with incorrect consignee details.

In this judgment, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issue of jurisdiction concerning an appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) declined to decide on the merit of the case. The Appellants, engaged in the manufacture of laminated rolls, had goods seized due to an error in the consignee details on the invoice. The Tribunal noted that the seizure was not due to clandestine removal but a clerical error. The Appellants sought provisional release of the goods, which was not granted by the Dy. Director, leading to an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal citing lack of jurisdiction as the goods were seized in Lucknow, not considering that the factory of the Appellants fell under his jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that in cases of clandestine removal, the adjudication should take place at the place of clearance, which in this instance was within the Commissioner's jurisdiction in Noida. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on the appeal after hearing the Appellants.

This judgment highlights the importance of jurisdiction in cases involving seized goods and the need for adjudication to occur at the place of clearance. It clarifies that the location of seizure becomes immaterial in cases of clandestine removal, emphasizing that the authority at the place of clearance holds jurisdiction for confirming duty, penalty, and confiscation of goods. The Tribunal's decision underscores the significance of considering the jurisdiction of the appropriate authority based on where the goods were initially cleared, ensuring a fair and lawful adjudication process.