1988 (6) TMI 162 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise as Additional Collector of Customs.

In this case, a preliminary objection was raised regarding the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise who passed the impugned order. The advocate for the appellants argued that the Additional Collector of Central Excise had not been appointed as Additional Collector of Customs as per the Customs Act, 1962. The advocate pointed out that while there were notifications appointing different Central Excise officers as Customs officers, there was no such appointment for the Additional Collector of Central Excise. The advocate highlighted that various documents, including the impugned order, indicated that the adjudicating authority acted as the Additional Collector of Central Excise, not as the Additional Collector of Customs, thus lacking jurisdiction.

The department's representative contended that the Additional Collector of Central Excise was considered the Collector of Central Excise under the Central Excise Rules and was appointed as the Collector of Customs through a notification. Referring to a previous tribunal decision, the representative argued that an Additional Collector of Central Excise should be equated with the Collector of Central Excise for all purposes, including customs matters. The department conceded that there was no separate notification appointing the Additional Collector of Central Excise as the Additional Collector of Customs.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal agreed with the department's arguments. Citing the previous tribunal decision, the Tribunal held that an Additional Collector of Central Excise should be treated as the Collector of Central Excise for all purposes, including customs matters. Therefore, the notification appointing Collectors of Central Excise as Collectors of Customs also applied to the Additional Collectors of Central Excise. The Tribunal concluded that there was no need for a separate appointment of the Additional Collector of Central Excise as the Additional Collector of Customs, as the statutory provisions equated the two roles. Consequently, the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction raised by the advocate for the appellants was overruled, and the appeals were scheduled for final hearing.