2016 (11) TMI 480 - HC - Central Excise

Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner - letter/circular dated 9.5.2013 issued by Additional Commissioner from Office of Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Commissionerate, Kanpur - initiation of necessary action against exporters of responding Commissionerate relating to Rules 91 and 92 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 - Held that - the letter has disclosed a modus operandi of certain footwear manufacturers for availing All Industry Rate of Drawback on the footwear exported by them and an attempt has been made by said circular to bring aforesaid modus operandi to notice of all concerned when some activity, followed by manufacturers or exporters, who are in the ambit of Central Excise, constitutes an act to evade duty if the manner in which they operate and other illegal activities are communicated to various authorities in department, such communication cannot be said per se illegal or without jurisdiction. We have no manner of doubt that such communication of modus operandi or facts relating to functioning of such persons by itself cannot be treated to be a direction or instruction to take action in any particular manner - letter dated 9.5.2013 sent by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur is not a direction to superior authorities across the country but only communication of certain facts and authorities are free to proceed in any manner, in accordance with law, independently, and said circular is not binding on any such authority - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Additional Commissioner to issue circular directing action against exporters under Central Excise Rules, 2002.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case arose from a circular issued by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur, directing action against exporters related to Central Excise Rules, 2002. The Appellant argued that the Additional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to issue such a circular to higher authorities across the country, deeming it wholly without jurisdiction.

The Appellant had previously approached the Court in a similar matter, which was disposed of directing the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) to decide on the representation regarding the circular. However, the CBEC, in its order, stated that the matter was subjudice before quasi-judicial authorities, and it would not interfere in pending proceedings.

The Respondent contended that the issue was subjudice before a quasi-judicial authority due to an appeal filed by the Appellant. Despite this, the Court required the CBEC to clarify whether the Additional Commissioner had the authority to direct superior officers across the country to take action against exporters.

Upon reviewing the circular in question, the Court found that it merely communicated certain facts regarding the modus operandi of certain footwear manufacturers for availing benefits, without issuing any binding direction. The Court clarified that the circular was not a directive to superior authorities but merely a communication of facts, allowing authorities to proceed independently in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Court held that the circular issued by the Additional Commissioner was not a direction to take action but merely a communication of facts, and authorities were free to act independently. As a result, the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.