2007 (5) TMI 500 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdictional competence of the Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate a duty demand case under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdictional Competence of the Assistant Commissioner:
The case involved a dispute regarding the competence of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to adjudicate a duty demand case under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Assistant Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 15.00 lakhs against the respondents and imposed a penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this order, citing the Board's Circular No. 229/15/97-CX, which limited the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to cases involving duty demands up to Rs. 2.00 lakhs, except for specified categories. The appellate Commissioner allowed the Department to have the show-cause notice adjudicated by the competent officer of Central Excise.

2. Grounds Raised in the Appeal:
The appeal by the Revenue contended that as the duty demand was under Rule 96ZO, the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was competent to adjudicate the case as per the Board's Circular. However, the Tribunal found that the Circular did not differentiate between duty demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and those under Rule 96ZO. It was acknowledged that the case did not involve any valuation or classification dispute but was solely about the demand for unpaid duty. The amount of duty exceeded both the limits set for Assistant/Deputy Commissioner and Additional Commissioner, indicating that the Commissioner should have dealt with the case as per the Circular.

3. Tribunal's Decision:
After careful consideration, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the appellate Commissioner to set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming that the case should have been handled by the Commissioner in accordance with the Board's Circular. The jurisdictional Commissioner was granted the liberty to adjudicate the show-cause notice following the law and principles of natural justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to jurisdictional guidelines set by the Board's Circular and upheld the decision to have the duty demand case adjudicated by the appropriate authority within the Central Excise department.