2000 (11) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I to adjudicate the case.
2. Clubbing of clearances of dummy units with the main appellant.
3. Validity of the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I.
4. Inherent vs. territorial jurisdiction in Central Excise matters.
5. Waiver of jurisdictional objections by the appellants.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I:
The primary issue was whether the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case involving M/s. T & I Ltd. and its associated dummy units, given that the factories and manufacturing activities were located outside his territorial jurisdiction. The appellants argued that the Collector did not have jurisdiction over their factory in Assam and other units in Tamil Nadu and Calcutta-II Collectorate areas, and that the proper authority should be the one having jurisdiction over the factory of M/s. T & I Ltd. The Revenue countered that the head office and the main incriminating documents were located within the jurisdiction of Calcutta-I, justifying the jurisdiction.

2. Clubbing of Clearances:
The demand for duty was based on the premise that M/s. T & I Ltd. got items manufactured by dummy units, which availed small-scale exemption benefits. The goods were cleared at lower prices and sold at higher prices by M/s. T & I Ltd. The appellants argued that if clubbing was necessary, it should be done by the authority having jurisdiction over the main factory.

3. Validity of the Show Cause Notice:
The appellants contended that the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I was a nullity due to lack of jurisdiction. The Revenue argued that the Principal Commissioner had directed the issuance of the show cause notice to avoid technical/legal difficulties, and the appellants did not raise jurisdictional objections at the earliest opportunity, thus waiving their right.

4. Inherent vs. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The case discussed the difference between inherent and territorial jurisdiction. The Revenue argued that lack of territorial jurisdiction does not render an order null and void unless it is shown that the authority lacked inherent jurisdiction. The appellants contended that under Central Excise law, territorial jurisdiction is crucial and cannot be waived or conferred by consent.

5. Waiver of Jurisdictional Objections:
The Revenue argued that the appellants did not raise the jurisdictional issue during adjudication or in their writ petitions, implying consent to the jurisdiction. The appellants countered that jurisdictional issues can be raised at any stage as they go to the root of the matter.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Decision:
The majority (Vice President P.C. Jain and Member (T) Dr. S.N. Busi) held that the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. They emphasized that jurisdiction in Central Excise matters is strictly territorial and defined by law. The Principal Commissioner's direction to issue the show cause notice did not confer jurisdiction. The objection to jurisdiction was valid and could be raised at any stage. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed on the point of jurisdiction.

Dissenting Opinion:
Member (J) Archana Wadhwa dissented, holding that the objection to territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of the matter and can be waived. She argued that the appellants' participation in the proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections implied consent. The cause of action arising within the jurisdiction of Calcutta-I and the seizure of incriminating documents justified the adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I.

Final Order:
In view of the majority decision, the appeals were allowed on the point of jurisdiction, and the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta-I was set aside.

← Previous Next →