2001 (7) TMI 128 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Jurisdiction of appellate authority and revisional authority under Sections 35B and 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Background and Facts:
The petitioner, a Company registered under the Companies Act, faced a denial of jurisdiction by both the appellate authority under Section 35B and the revisional authority under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner sought relief through a writ petition initially praying for a mandamus and later amended it to request a Certiorari to quash orders confirming duty demand and imposing penalties.

2. Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), contended that certain goods cleared for export were actually sold to advance license holders within the country, not exported. The petitioner argued that the failure of the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider this claim resulted in denial of appeal and revision remedies before the Appellate Tribunal and Central Government.

3. Department's Position:
The Senior Standing Counsel argued that the petitioner failed to provide evidence of exports within the required period, leading to a duty demand. The Department maintained that the petitioner is liable for the duty amounting to over Rs. 30 lakhs, despite the inability to justify the orders of the Appellate Tribunal or revisional authority.

4. Court's Analysis and Decision:
The central issue was whether an appeal lies with the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B or a revision under Section 35EE against the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Court noted the necessity to determine whether the goods were exported or sold within India. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to decide this crucial issue, leading to jurisdictional challenges.

5. Court's Ruling:
In the interest of justice, the Court quashed the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal, remitting the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to ascertain if the goods were exported or sold within India. The Court also set aside the revisional authority's order to prevent influence on the fresh adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to complete the adjudication within two months.

6. Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, emphasizing the need for a proper determination of whether the goods were exported or sold within India. The Court's decision aimed to clarify the jurisdictional ambiguity and ensure a fair resolution based on the material presented by the petitioner.