2006 (9) TMI 313 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining the jurisdiction of Single Member Bench for cases involving disputes regarding interest under Section 35-D(3) of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 35-D(3) of the Central Excise Act concerning the jurisdiction of a Single Member Bench in cases involving disputes related to interest. The issue arose when a group of stay applications was presented before the Division Bench under Section 35-F. The counsel for the applicants argued that since the matters did not concern the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment and the duty/penalty/interest did not exceed Rs. 10 lakhs, they should be heard by a Single Member Bench. However, the registry referred to an order directing cases with interest disputes to be placed before a Division Bench.

The judgment highlighted the order made on 12-6-2006 in E/Stay No. 976/2006, where a Single Member Bench transferred a matter to the Division Bench due to an interest dispute. The Single Member's decision was based on the understanding that disputes regarding interest fall outside the purview of Single Member jurisdiction if they do not involve duty/fine/penalty exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs. The proviso to Section 35-D(3) was crucial in determining the cases suitable for a Single Member Bench.

Section 35-D(3) specifies that cases falling under clause (a) - involving questions related to duty rate or goods' value for assessment - cannot be heard by a Single Member if the duty difference exceeds Rs. 10 lakhs. However, disputes solely concerning interest are not automatically excluded from Single Member jurisdiction unless they involve duty/value disputes exceeding the threshold. The judgment emphasized that disputes related to interest typically arise alongside duty or penalty issues and are not excluded unless they breach the Rs. 10 lakhs limit.

Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the applications should be heard by a Single Member Bench based on the interpretation of Section 35-D(3) and the exclusion criteria outlined therein. This decision clarified the scope of Single Member jurisdiction in cases involving disputes regarding interest, emphasizing the threshold limits and the interplay with duty and penalty issues.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 6-9-2006)