1987 (8) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Denial of principles of natural justice.
2. Non-speaking order by the Assistant Collector.
3. Dependency on the superior authority's order.
4. Merits of the proforma credit under relevant notifications.
5. Jurisdiction of the appeals filed before the Board.
6. Appropriate course of action for incompetent appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Denial of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellants contended that the Assistant Collector passed the impugned order without giving them an opportunity to be heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. This procedural lapse was argued to vitiate the order.

2. Non-Speaking Order by the Assistant Collector:
The appellants argued that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was not a speaking order. It lacked detailed reasoning and explanation, making it legally unsustainable.

3. Dependency on the Superior Authority's Order:
The appellants claimed that the Assistant Collector's decision was based on the order of the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, and not on his independent judgment. This reliance on a superior authority's order was argued to invalidate the Assistant Collector's decision, as it compromised the quasi-judicial function. The appellants cited the Supreme Court decision in Orient Paper Mills v. Union of India to support this contention.

4. Merits of the Proforma Credit under Relevant Notifications:
On merits, the appellants contended that Notification No. 95/79, dated 1-3-1979, as amended by Notification No. 110/80, dated 1-8-1980, clearly allowed the benefit of proforma credit of duty paid on stators and rotors used in the manufacture of fans. They also referenced a letter from the Ministry clarifying the legal position regarding the availment of proforma credit, which was binding on departmental officers. Additionally, they pointed out that similar refund claims had been allowed in previous appeals.

5. Jurisdiction of the Appeals Filed Before the Board:
The respondent argued that the appeals filed before the Board were not maintainable as no appeal or revision was provided to the Board against the order of the Assistant Collector. The proper forum for such appeals was the Appellate Collector. The Tribunal upheld this objection, agreeing that the appeals were incompetent and not maintainable in law.

6. Appropriate Course of Action for Incompetent Appeals:
There was a difference of opinion between the members of the Tribunal on whether the appeals should be transferred to the jurisdictional Collector (Appeals) or returned to the appellants. One member, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assam Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Central Board of Excise and Customs, argued for transferring the appeals. The other member, citing the Madras High Court decision in India Pistons Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, contended that the appeals should be returned to the appellants for proper presentation to the correct authority. The third member agreed with the latter view, emphasizing that the Tribunal lacked the statutory power to transfer the appeals.

Final Order:
The majority view held that the appeals of M/s. Rallis Machines Ltd. were not competent and should be returned to the appellants for pursuing their remedy. The Tribunal ordered accordingly.