2007 (8) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue points out that Circular No.3/92-Cx.6 on which the Commissioner (A) has placed reliance in deciding the issue of jurisdiction, was not in force when the matter was adjudicated by the original authority - departmental instructions conferring the jurisdiction on the departmental officers are only supplement the procedural functioning in furtherance of administration but does not take away the rights nor cause any prejudice to the parties, if any irregularities committed case remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of jurisdiction of the adjudicating officer in deciding cases involving amounts exceeding Rs.50,000.
2. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to issue show cause notices.
3. Reliance on Circular No.3/92-Cx.6 and Circular No.66/88 in deciding jurisdictional matters.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Lack of jurisdiction of the adjudicating officer
The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Indore. The learned JDR argued that the Commissioner had only touched upon the legal aspect of the case without delving into the merits, rendering the order legally flawed. It was observed that the adjudicating officer can decide cases involving amounts up to Rs.50,000 only. In this case, the officer confirmed demands totaling over Rs.7.5 lakhs, surpassing the monetary limit. This discrepancy alone was deemed sufficient to set aside the impugned order.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to issue show cause notices
The respondents were involved in manufacturing electric wires and cables falling under chapter 85 of the Central Excise Tariff. Certain irregularities were noticed during the scrutiny of returns, leading to the issuance of three show cause notices by the Range Superintendent. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demands mentioned in the notices. The learned JDR argued that Circular No.66/88 empowered the Assistant Commissioner to issue show cause notices, contrary to the Commissioner's belief. Additionally, reliance on Circular No.3/92-Cx.6, which was not in force during the original adjudication, was deemed inappropriate. The learned JDR cited a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that administrative directions allocating works to officers should not diminish their statutory jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Reliance on Circulars in deciding jurisdictional matters
The Tribunal concurred with the learned JDR's arguments that Circular No.3/92-Cx.6 could not be used by the Commissioner to determine monetary jurisdiction as it was not in effect during the original adjudication. It was clarified that departmental instructions supplement procedural functioning but do not impact rights or cause prejudice to parties. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for re-adjudication, including all raised issues. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the case.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of lack of jurisdiction, the authority to issue show cause notices, and the relevance of circulars in determining jurisdictional matters, ultimately leading to the decision to remand the case for further adjudication.