1990 (12) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.
2. Validity of the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985.
3. Endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:

The petitioners contended that the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise was without jurisdiction. The argument centered on Section 78 of the Gold (Control) Act, which specifies the officers authorized to adjudicate under the Act. Section 78(a) empowers a Collector of Central Excise or Customs with unlimited adjudication powers. Section 78(b) allows the Central Government to authorize other Gold Control Officers, not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, through a notification.

The court examined the relevant notifications:
- Notification dated 27-12-1980 authorized the Additional Collector of Customs to exercise adjudication powers.
- Notification No. 3/81 dated 1-8-1981 included the Additional Collector of Central Excise.
- Notification dated 6-6-1984 omitted both the Additional Collector of Customs and the Additional Collector of Central Excise from the list of authorized officers.

The court concluded that post 6-6-1984, the Additional Collector of Central Excise no longer had the authority to exercise adjudication powers under the Gold (Control) Act. The argument that the definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, which includes an Additional Collector, should apply to the Gold (Control) Act was rejected. The court emphasized that powers under the Gold (Control) Act must be explicitly conferred by a notification under Section 78(b).

2. Validity of the Adjudication Order dated 19-1-1985:

Given the lack of jurisdiction, the court found the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure A) to be invalid. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was not authorized to pass the order as he ceased to be a Gold Control Officer post 6-6-1984. The court quashed the order on the grounds of it being passed without jurisdiction.

3. Endorsement Issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras:

The petitioners also sought to quash the endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 13-3-1985 (Annexure G-1), which declined to entertain their appeal. However, since the adjudication order itself was quashed, the court deemed it unnecessary to address this issue further.

Conclusion:

The writ petitions were allowed, and the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was quashed. The court ordered the return of the primary gold weighing 1416 grams to the first petitioner within eight weeks. The endorsement by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, was not considered further due to the quashing of the adjudication order.