1997 (7) TMI 125 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in ordering that the allegations contained in the third show cause notice should be looked into for the purpose of adjudication, on remand, of the first and second show cause notices? Held that - It is to be noted that the High Court by its order dated 21st July, 1994, permitted the assessee and the Revenue to file appeals against the said adjudication order within two months, but the Revenue did not take advantage thereof and filed its appeal only on 13th December, 1994. The Tribunal found no legal difficulty in holding that the allegations contained in the third show cause notice should be looked into for the purpose of adjudication of the first and second show cause notices. We find great difficulty in upholding the Tribunal s view. As we see it, each show cause notice must be limited to the case that is made out therein by the Revenue. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to direct otherwise; to do so is to go beyond its purely adjudicatory function. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the Board's order directing appeal against the adjudication order.
2. Timeliness of the Revenue's appeal.
3. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider allegations from a third show cause notice in adjudicating the first and second show cause notices.

Analysis:

1. The case involved an appeal against an order of the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The assessee, a cigarette manufacturing company, received multiple show cause notices for excise duty demands. The High Court permitted the Revenue to proceed with adjudication but restricted communication of the orders to the assessee. The Central Board of Excise & Customs later directed the Commissioner to apply to the Tribunal for determination of issues arising from the adjudication order. The Tribunal considered the timing of the Board's order and the High Court's directives regarding communication of the assessment order.

2. Section 35E(1) empowers the Board to examine adjudication orders for legality and propriety within a specified time frame. The Board's order in this case was made after the prescribed period, leading to a challenge on the timeliness of the Revenue's appeal. The High Court's orders did not restrict the Board's examination of the assessment order, and the Tribunal erred in accepting the argument that the assessment order date should be deemed from when it was removed from the sealed envelope. Ultimately, the Revenue's appeal was held to be beyond the permissible time limit.

3. The Tribunal's decision to consider allegations from a third show cause notice in adjudicating the first and second show cause notices was challenged. The Tribunal's jurisdiction was questioned as it went beyond its adjudicatory function by allowing the consideration of additional allegations not contained in the initial show cause notices. The Supreme Court found this approach to be legally unsound and directed that the hearing on remand should be limited to the case made out in each show cause notice separately, without incorporating allegations from the third notice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the Revenue's appeal was deemed untimely and should not be entertained. The Tribunal's decision to consider allegations from the third show cause notice was found to exceed its jurisdiction, and the hearing on remand was directed to focus solely on the merits of the first and second show cause notices without incorporating extraneous allegations.