2012 (10) TMI 109 - HC - Central Excise

Challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Delhi - Held that - The petitioner had received the notices of transfer of the cases by the Central Board of Excise & Customs under Rule 3 (1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Notification No. 39/2001 - Central Excise (N.T.) dated 26.6.2001, from the Commissioner, Central Excise Meerut in November, 2011. It is admitted that the petitioner had put in appearance before the Commissioner (Adjudication), Central Excise, Delhi, to which the case and other 138 similar cases have been transferred. Thus the petitioner has sufficiently explained the delay in approaching the Court after having received the notice in November, 2011. It also acquiesced to jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority, by putting appearance before him. No merit in the grounds of hardships in inter-State transfer as the State of UP adjoins the State of Delhi. The distance is not so big that the ground of travel may be considered to challenge jurisdiction of common Adjudicating Authority - against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Delhi designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs as a Common Adjudicating Authority for similar cases; Challenge to the authority of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in designating a common Adjudicating Authority; Allegations of large scale fraud in claiming input credits by manufacturers of Menthol Crystal/Powder/Solution; Delay in approaching the Court after receiving transfer notices; Hardships in inter-State transfer for adjudication purposes.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought various reliefs through a writ petition, challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Delhi designated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The petitioner alleged that the transfer orders were passed without hearing them and that travelling between states for adjudication would be burdensome. The petitioner relied on legal precedents to argue that jurisdiction can be questioned at any stage of proceedings. On the other hand, the Central Excise department defended the transfer of cases to the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Delhi, citing special circumstances and the need for a Common Adjudicating Authority for similar cases. It was revealed that the transfer notices were duly received by the petitioner, who had appeared before the Adjudicating Authority without sufficient explanation for the delay in approaching the Court.

The Court found that the petitioner did not adequately justify the delay in approaching the Court after receiving the transfer notices and had accepted the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority by participating in the proceedings. The petitioner's challenge to the authority of the Central Board of Excise and Customs in designating a common Adjudicating Authority was dismissed. Additionally, the Central Excise department highlighted allegations of large scale fraud by manufacturers of Menthol Crystal/Powder/Solution in claiming input credits fraudulently. The Court also rejected the argument of hardships in inter-State transfer for adjudication, stating that the proximity of states did not warrant a challenge to the jurisdiction of the common Adjudicating Authority.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the authority of the Commissioner (Adjudication) Central Excise, Delhi as the Common Adjudicating Authority for similar cases and rejecting the petitioner's claims of jurisdictional issues and hardships in inter-State transfers for adjudication purposes.