2013 (7) TMI 344 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs - Show cause notice - Held that - Plain reading of condition 8 of notification 36/96 stipulates that it is the duty of the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise to take action against the assessee if any of the conditions is violated by the assesse - But, here instead of Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Customs, Pune has issued show-cause notice which is beyond his jurisdiction - Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs to issue show-cause notice under Notification 36/96-Cus dated 23/07/1996.

In this case, the appellant appealed against an order denying the benefit of Notification 36/96-Cus dated 23/07/1996. The appellant imported inputs for manufacturing products, claiming exemption under the said Notification. The Commissioner of Customs issued a show-cause notice for demand of differential duty as some inputs were not fully utilized in the final product. The appellant contended that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue the notice. The appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision in the case of BPL Sanyo. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise was responsible for taking action in case of violation of conditions under the Notification. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to issue the notice, as per condition no. 8 of the Notification, which specifically assigned this duty to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Customs.

This judgment primarily dealt with the issue of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to issue a show-cause notice under Notification 36/96-Cus dated 23/07/1996. The Tribunal analyzed the language of condition no. 8 of the Notification, which mandated the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to take action in case of violations. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Customs exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing the show-cause notice, as it was the responsibility of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise as per the Notification. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific provisions outlined in the Notification to determine the appropriate authority for taking action in such cases. This analysis highlights the significance of statutory provisions in defining the scope of authority and ensuring compliance with procedural requirements.

The appellant's argument regarding the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs was supported by the reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BPL Sanyo. The Tribunal considered this precedent in conjunction with the provisions of the Notification to determine the correct authority for issuing a show-cause notice in the present case. By referencing established legal principles and previous judicial decisions, the Tribunal reinforced the appellant's position regarding the jurisdictional issue. This aspect of the judgment underscores the importance of legal precedents and their application in interpreting statutory provisions to resolve jurisdictional disputes effectively.

The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to issue the show-cause notice. By focusing on the specific language of the Notification and the assigned responsibilities of the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner had acted beyond his authority. This outcome highlights the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory provisions in administrative actions. The Tribunal's ruling serves as a reminder of the essential role of statutory interpretation in determining the scope of administrative powers and ensuring procedural fairness in legal proceedings.