1984 (8) TMI 332 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal
2. Interpretation of Notifications No. 71/78, 80/80, and 111/78
3. Applicability of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the East Regional Bench of the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the appeal filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Patna. The appellant argued that the case involves the interpretation of several notifications which, if applied, would result in a nil rate of duty. According to sub-section 2 of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, cases involving the determination of the rate of duty must be heard by a Special Bench. The respondent, however, contended that the nil rate is not a rate and that the self-removal procedure system under Rule 52-A and Rule 173-G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, supports their claim. The Tribunal concluded that it does not have jurisdiction, as the rate of duty is indeed involved, and directed the transfer of the appeal to the Special Bench in New Delhi.

2. Interpretation of Notifications No. 71/78, 80/80, and 111/78:
The respondent claimed entitlement to exemption from duty based on these notifications. The Collector (Appeals) had previously allowed the benefit of these notifications, stating that the exemption could not be denied simply because a small portion of the goods was sold to customers in Nepal. The Tribunal did not delve into the detailed interpretation of these notifications but acknowledged that their applicability results in a nil rate of duty, thus affecting the jurisdiction.

3. Applicability of Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Tribunal referenced Section 35D, which mandates that appeals involving the determination of the rate of duty must be heard by a Special Bench consisting of at least three members, including one judicial and one technical member. The Tribunal emphasized that deciding the appeal would be an irregular exercise of jurisdiction. The judgment cited previous cases and legal provisions to reinforce that the Special Bench has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Tribunal concluded that it must adhere to statutory provisions and cannot assume jurisdiction over appeals involving the rate of duty.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it involves the determination of the rate of duty. The case was ordered to be transferred to the Special Bench, Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, for appropriate adjudication. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to statutory jurisdictional mandates and clarifies that cases involving the rate of duty must be handled by the designated Special Bench.