1989 (12) TMI 62 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise.
2. Procedural correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's decision.
3. Legality and validity of the order passed by the Collector confirming the show cause notice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise:
The petitioners contended that the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes, arguing that only the Assistant Collector was competent to do so. The Tribunal, however, held that the Collector had the jurisdiction to decide the matter, and this preliminary objection was decided against the petitioners.

2. Procedural Correctness of the Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
The High Court scrutinized the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal, which decided the preliminary objection separately from the merits of the case. The High Court noted that Section 35D of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, provides for the procedure to be adopted by the Appellate Tribunal, incorporating provisions from the Customs Act, 1962. Specifically, Section 129C(6) of the Customs Act grants the Tribunal wide powers to regulate its own procedure. However, the High Court emphasized that such powers should be exercised with restraint and circumspection, advocating for the simultaneous decision of all points to avoid piecemeal hearings.

The High Court referenced precedents, including the Bombay High Court's decision in *Shivshankar Chhaganlal Shukla v. Laxman Chimanlal Soni and Others* and the Supreme Court's ruling in *Major S.S. Khanna v. Brig. F.J. Dhillon*, which discourage the separate decision of preliminary issues. The High Court concluded that the Appellate Tribunal's approach was erroneous and that all issues should be decided together to avoid delays and potential harm to the community.

3. Legality and Validity of the Order Passed by the Collector Confirming the Show Cause Notice:
The High Court noted that the Collector of Central Excise had decided the entire matter on merits, ordering the payment of excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,32,96,010.58 and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/-. The petitioners challenged this order, but the High Court emphasized that the appeal on merits was still pending before the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court refused to perpetuate the error of deciding preliminary issues separately and directed that the appeal be decided on merits by the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The High Court rejected the petition, directing the petitioners to proceed with the appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal. It clarified that the petitioners could challenge the final decision of the Appellate Tribunal, including the contentions raised in this petition, before the appropriate forum. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated, and the rule was discharged.