1991 (2) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdictional error in the appointment of the Collector
- Delegation of powers in quantifying the demand
- Financial hardship and waiver of pre-deposit
- Validity of the appointment and powers of the Collector
- Requirement of filing financial details and assets

Jurisdictional Error in Appointment of Collector:
The application before the Appellate Tribunal concerned a stay of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi, which demanded duty payment and imposed a penalty. The applicants challenged the jurisdiction of the Collector on various grounds, including the appointment of the Principal Collector and Collector (Judicial). The argument was based on the fact that the Collector (Judicial) did not have the powers of a Collector of Central Excise at the time of passing the order. This was supported by the subsequent corrigendum issued to rectify the error in the appointment.

Delegation of Powers in Quantifying the Demand:
Another ground of challenge was the delegation of powers by the Collector in quantifying the demand. The applicants contended that the Collector alone should determine the amount of demand as per Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, and this function cannot be delegated to a subordinate officer. They objected to the Assistant Collector quantifying the demand and argued that the order was flawed in this aspect.

Financial Hardship and Waiver of Pre-deposit:
The applicants pleaded financial hardship in making the required pre-deposit of duty and penalty. They submitted their company's Balance Sheet showing a loss and requested a waiver of the pre-deposit during the appeal process due to their financial situation.

Validity of the Appointment and Powers of the Collector:
The Departmental Representative presented office orders regarding the appointment of the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, to establish the legality of the appointment and the vesting of powers in the Collector. It was argued that the initial appointment and subsequent promotion of the Collector were done correctly, and the Collector had the necessary jurisdiction and powers.

Requirement of Filing Financial Details and Assets:
The Tribunal directed the applicants to provide complete details of their movable and immovable assets, supported by an affidavit, to ensure transparency and safeguard the interest of revenue. The applicants were instructed not to alienate their assets without prior permission and were given a deadline for submission to report compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments and documents presented, found a prima facie case in favor of the applicants. They dispensed with the pre-deposit of duty and penalty during the appeal process and prohibited coercive actions by the authorities. Additionally, they imposed restrictions on the alienation of assets and mandated the submission of detailed financial information by a specified deadline for further review.