1984 (10) TMI 214 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar in passing an order after an appeal decision by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta.
2. Lack of show cause notice and opportunity of being heard to the appellants by the Collector, Bhubaneswar.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the issuance of an L-6 license for obtaining rejected reel core as raw material for further manufacturing. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Rourkela, initially communicated that the appellants were not eligible for the license based on certain notifications. However, the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta, allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the exemption and ordering the issuance of the L-6 license.

2. Subsequently, the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, passed an order reiterating the rejection of the L-6 license application without providing a show cause notice or an opportunity of being heard to the appellants. The Collector, Bhubaneswar, contended that the Collector (Appeals) had overstepped his jurisdiction in granting the license, and therefore, the decision was beyond his authority.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 35-B(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which empowers the Collector of Central Excise to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal if he deems an order by the Collector (Appeals) as improper. The Tribunal concluded that the Collector, Bhubaneswar, did not have the authority to pass an order contradicting the decision of the Collector (Appeals) without filing an appeal to the Tribunal.

4. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the Collector's order lacked procedural fairness as it was issued without a show cause notice or an opportunity for the appellants to present their case. This procedural irregularity rendered the Collector's order invalid and necessitated setting it aside for a de novo adjudication.

5. In light of the above, the Tribunal held that the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Bhubaneswar, was unsustainable due to jurisdictional overreach and procedural deficiencies. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and legal boundaries in administrative decisions.