2015 (1) TMI 849 - CGOVT - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise - Rejection of proof of export - Monetary limit - Held that - appellate authority has given a categorical finding with respect to powers of adjudication and held that in the matter of imposition of penalty, AC/DCCE cannot adjudicate cases involving duty of more than ₹ 5.00 lakhs. He has also held that in the matter of acceptance of proof of export, there is no prescribed monetary limit for adjudication of case. In these cases the DCCE vide impugned order-in-original dated 28.7.11 has rejected the proof of export and ordered for recovery of duty to the extent of ₹ 4471024/-along with interest and has not imposed any penalty. Applicant department has not challenged the above said finding of appellate authority that DCCE has unlimited power to accept/reject proof of export. So, the DCCE was competent to pass said order. Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the ground of compliance of principles of natural justice and allowed both appeals by setting aside the order-in-original. Government notes that Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered the document submitted as proof of export and did not give any finding on the proof of export submitted by party and erred inpassing an order which is bad in law. Government therefore is of view that matter is required to b remanded back for considering the matter afresh on merits of the case by following principle of natural justice. - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in adjudicating proof of export cases.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing orders.
3. Power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in adjudicating proof of export cases:
The case involved revision applications filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II against an order-in-appeal regarding proof of export rejection by the Deputy Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order-in-original, stating that there is no prescribed monetary limit for adjudication by the original authority in proof of export cases. However, the AC/DCCE's powers for adjudication are restricted to cases involving duty up to Rs. 5.00 lakhs for fines and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed both appeals, emphasizing the importance of a personal hearing and principles of natural justice.

Issue 2: Compliance with principles of natural justice in passing orders:
The respondent merchant exporter challenged the rejection of proof of exports, citing a lack of personal hearing and violation of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) found merit in these arguments and set aside the order-in-original. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to consider the documents submitted as proof of export and did not provide a finding on their validity. Consequently, the government observed that a remand back to the original authority was necessary to reevaluate the case on its merits while ensuring compliance with natural justice principles.

Issue 3: Power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The revision applications raised concerns regarding the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the case back to the original authority, which was deemed impermissible under Section 35A. The government noted that while the AC/DCCE had the authority to accept or reject proof of exports without a prescribed monetary limit, the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not thoroughly examining the proof of export submitted by the party. As a result, the government decided to set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases back to the original authority for a fresh consideration based on the evidence presented by the party.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in proof of export cases, emphasized the need for compliance with principles of natural justice, and clarified the power of remand under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The government's decision to remand the cases back to the original authority for a reevaluation underscored the importance of a fair and thorough assessment of the evidence presented in such matters.