1989 (3) TMI 279 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector after 27-12-1985 under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 22-5-1987. The case involved the manufacturing and clearance of mill board using sludge procured from outside along with waste paper, availing of Notification 45/83. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice alleging ineligibility for concessional duty, leading to an adjudication order challenged in appeal. The lower appellate authority held that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction after 27-12-1985 under the proviso to Section 11A, transferring the case to the Collector of Central Excise. The Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum appealed to the Tribunal against this decision.

2. The learned S.D.R. contended that while the lower appellate authority was correct in determining the Assistant Collector's lack of jurisdiction post 27-12-1985, the case should have been remanded to the Collector of Central Excise for adjudication. The respondents, in their cross-objection, argued against interference, claiming the show cause notice was void and unsustainable due to lack of suppression allegations. They also argued against de novo proceedings, citing adverse presumptions formed by the Collector's appeal.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the legal implications of Section 8 of the Central Excise (Amendment) Act, 1985, which transferred pending proceedings to the Collector of Central Excise after 27-12-1985. It concluded that the Assistant Collector's jurisdiction was void post that date, and any order issued by them was non-est in law. The Tribunal clarified that even if an order is void, re-adjudication by the competent authority is permissible without the application of res judicata principles. Therefore, the Collector of Central Excise had the authority to adjudicate the case afresh.

4. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the Collector's appeal indicated an adverse opinion, noting that the appeal was based on procedural grounds and did not delve into the merits of the case. As the Collector had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case, the cross-objection filed by the respondents was dismissed. The appeal was disposed of, affirming the Collector of Central Excise's competence to proceed with the adjudication as per the law.

This judgment clarifies the transfer of jurisdiction from the Assistant Collector to the Collector of Central Excise post the specified date and emphasizes the authority of the latter to re-adjudicate cases previously handled by the former.