9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 947 - AT - Central Excisejurisdiction of the Tribunal - Maintainability of appeal - Review of decision - Held that - Present order sought to be amended by the appellant is not order passed under any of the provisions of Central Excise Act 1944 because nowhere in the law authority is vested for passing such order. When no power is shown from the statute to exercise power of the kind referred in the order sought to be looked into which is neither decision nor order under any of the provision of law for remedial action there is no appellate jurisdiction exercisable by Tribunal. Therefore the order passed is correct holding that he being appointed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs which is a creature of the Central Board of Revenue Act 1963 to implement the administrative direction he acted as an Administrative Authority accordingly. He made it clear that supervision charges are collected under administrative mechanism and he has not committed any error. He has not exercised power of the adjudicating authority in this case - Decided against assessee.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in reviewing administrative orders; Appealability of administrative directions under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal in reviewing administrative orders: The Tribunal was approached for a review of its earlier decision that an appeal against an administrative direction is not maintainable. The appellant sought a reversal of the Tribunal's decision to grant relief. However, the Tribunal clarified that it cannot entertain a review in the guise of a Miscellaneous Application (Review of Mistake) since it is not a Civil Court. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the review application on this ground. Appealability of administrative directions under the Central Excise Act, 1944: The appellant claimed that the order rejecting appeals against a refund claim is appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) and then to the Tribunal. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in holding that such an appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal emphasized that the right of appeal is a statutory remedy, not an inherent right, conferred by Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It clarified that a person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has the right to appeal before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act. The Tribunal explained the dual role of a Central Excise officer under the Act - as a quasi-judicial authority and an administrative authority. While the officer acts as an adjudicating authority, the orders passed are appealable under the Act. However, when acting as an administrative authority, the officer oversees the implementation of the law without exercising adjudicatory powers. The Tribunal highlighted the distinction between these roles and emphasized that administrative orders not falling under the Act are not appealable. The Tribunal referenced legal precedents, including decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts, to support its stance. It noted that decisions such as those of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan emphasized that appeals do not arise against administrative orders that are not passed under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Tribunal concluded that the order sought to be amended was not passed under any provision of the Act, and as such, there was no appellate jurisdiction for the Tribunal to consider the matter. In summary, the Tribunal upheld its decision that administrative directions not falling under the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not appealable before the Tribunal. It clarified the distinction between the roles of a Central Excise officer and emphasized the statutory nature of the right of appeal under the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the review application and affirmed that the appellant's claims were not maintainable before the Tribunal.
|
