2002 (12) TMI 104 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the show cause notice and adjudication order based on the absence of the Commissioner's signature on the served copies.
2. Whether the appellant can raise objections regarding the show cause notice at the appellate stage.
3. Examination of relevant case law cited by both parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Show Cause Notice and Adjudication Order:
The appellant raised a preliminary objection that the copy of the order received did not bear the signature of the Collector, showing only "Sd/- 24-2-94" and attested by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs. The Tribunal examined the original file and found that the draft show cause notice was approved by the Collector on 1-8-91 and the final draft order was signed by the Commissioner on 24-2-94. The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice and adjudication order were issued under the authority of the Commissioner, and the mere fact that the copies served on the appellant were attested and not signed by the Commissioner did not invalidate the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that while it is advisable for the served copy to bear the signature of the authorized officer to avoid unnecessary litigation, the absence of such a signature does not inherently invalidate the notice or order if the original was duly signed.

2. Objections Raised at the Appellate Stage:
The Revenue argued that the appellant cannot be permitted to raise the issue regarding the show cause notice at this stage since no such objection was taken in their reply to the show cause notice nor before the adjudicating authority. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the appellant did not raise this objection earlier and thus cannot challenge the validity of the show cause notice on these grounds at this stage. The Tribunal cited relevant case law supporting the position that objections regarding jurisdiction or procedural issues should be raised at the earliest opportunity.

3. Examination of Relevant Case Law:
The Tribunal reviewed several cases cited by both parties:

- Chander Lakshmi Tempered Glass Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh: The Tribunal found that the facts of this case were different and not applicable to the present case.
- J.K. Leatherite Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE: The Tribunal noted that the facts of this case, where the draft order signed by the adjudicating authority differed from the copy served on the party, did not apply to the present case.
- Om Prakash Arun Kumar v. Collector of Customs: The Tribunal found this case irrelevant as it dealt with the date of signing for appeal purposes.
- Apple International v. CCE, Nhava Sheva: The Tribunal distinguished this case based on the facts and lack of examination of the original file.
- Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore: The Tribunal found this case inapplicable due to discrepancies in the show cause notice.
- Income-tax Act Cases: The Tribunal noted that the provisions under the Income-tax Act regarding the signature on notices did not apply to the Central Excise context.

The Tribunal also considered decisions supporting the Revenue's position:
- Ghanshyam Agarwal v. CCE, Allahabad: The Tribunal found that an order issued by a Superintendent for an Additional Collector did not constitute an irregularity.
- Montana Valves & Compressors P. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai: The Tribunal held that an attested copy served on the assessee did not invalidate the notice if the office copy was signed by the Commissioner.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the show cause notice and adjudication order were valid despite the copies served on the appellant being attested and not signed by the Commissioner. The appellant's challenge on these grounds was not entertained, and the matter was sent back for consideration on merits by the referring Bench.

← Previous Next →