2010 (2) TMI 314 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction- The Revenue filed Appeal against the order on the ground of jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. Held that- the impugned order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong is without jurisdiction. The impugned order is set aside after waiving the pre-deposit of duty and penalty and matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati to pass an appropriate order afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong

Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong:
The case involved applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty, along with an appeal by the Revenue challenging the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. The impugned order demanded duty and imposed a penalty, leading to the Revenue filing an appeal citing lack of jurisdiction by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. The Revenue argued that the Commissioner erred in initiating adjudication proceedings after December 1, 2008, concerning a Show Cause Notice, as the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction over the matter due to the creation of the Guwahati Central Excise Commissionerate. The Revenue contended that the case records should have been transferred to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, for adjudication. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong was deemed without jurisdiction. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, waived the pre-deposit of duty and penalty, and remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati, for a fresh order after providing the assessee with an opportunity for a hearing. The Appeals were disposed of by way of remand, highlighting the importance of jurisdiction in adjudication proceedings.

Conclusion:
The judgment focused on the crucial issue of jurisdiction concerning the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, emphasizing the necessity for proper jurisdiction in adjudication proceedings. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order, waive pre-deposit, and remand the matter underscored the significance of adjudicating within the appropriate jurisdictional framework. The case serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing jurisdictional matters and the procedural requirements for transferring cases to the competent authority for adjudication, ensuring a fair and lawful process for all parties involved.