2000 (5) TMI 68 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Status of an order passed by a Central Excise Officer without jurisdiction.
2. Applicability of the extended period of limitation in adjudicating excise duty evasion cases.
3. Legal consequences of orders passed by officers lacking jurisdiction.
4. Legislative mandate and transfer of jurisdiction under the Amendment Act of 1985.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Status of an Order Passed by a Central Excise Officer Without Jurisdiction:
The Tribunal considered the status of an order issued by a Central Excise Officer who lacked jurisdiction. It was noted that such an order is "ab initio void, nonest in the eye of law and consequently a nullity." This means that the order does not give rise to any legal consequences and is treated as if it never existed. The Tribunal emphasized that an order passed by an officer without jurisdiction cannot be reviewed but must be ignored.

2. Applicability of the Extended Period of Limitation:
With effect from 27-12-1985, the jurisdiction to decide cases involving the extended period of limitation for excise duty evasion was transferred from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to the Collector of Central Excise. This transfer was mandated by the Amendment Act of 1985, specifically Section 8, which stated that all pending proceedings invoking the extended period of limitation "shall stand transferred" to the Collector of Central Excise.

3. Legal Consequences of Orders Passed by Officers Lacking Jurisdiction:
The Tribunal highlighted that orders passed by officers lacking jurisdiction are nullities and do not have any legal effect. It cited several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan, which established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced. The Tribunal also referenced decisions where it was held that jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter, and without jurisdiction, the order is inherently void.

4. Legislative Mandate and Transfer of Jurisdiction:
The Tribunal underscored the legislative intention behind the Amendment Act of 1985, which was to ensure that cases involving the extended period of limitation were adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise. The Tribunal noted that any order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise after 26-12-1985, in cases where the extended period of limitation was invoked, was a nullity. This legislative mandate was absolute and unambiguous, ensuring that such proceedings were automatically transferred to the Collector of Central Excise.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that orders passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise or Assistant Collector of Central Excise after 26-12-1985, in cases involving the extended period of limitation for excise duty evasion, were nullities. These non-est orders do not affect the powers of the competent authority to proceed with the proceedings from the stage at which it was on 27-12-1985 or from any earlier stage as deemed fit by the authority. The reference was answered accordingly, and the matter was directed to be posted before appropriate benches for regular hearings.