1992 (2) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Collector to pass the impugned order after the joining of another Collector.
Nature of the order passed by the Collector - whether it was a final adjudication order or a draft order.

Jurisdiction Issue Analysis:
The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional issue raised in the stay applications. The argument was centered around whether the impugned order passed by the Collector was beyond jurisdiction due to the joining of another Collector. The Ministry had allocated separate areas of work to the Collectors, but it was affirmed that this did not affect the powers vested in both Collectors by the Act and Rules. The powers of adjudication under Section 33(a) of the Act could not be curtailed by executive instructions. The Tribunal concluded that both Collectors had jurisdiction within the Chandigarh Central Excise Collectorate, and the plea that the Collector lacked jurisdiction after the joining of the second Collector was rejected.

Nature of Order Issue Analysis:
Regarding the nature of the order, it was revealed that the order communicated to the petitioners was a draft order, as confirmed by an affidavit from the Collector. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Surender Singh's case, stating that a draft remains non-final until formally delivered. The Tribunal noted that for adjudication proceedings, communication to parties should be of a final order signed by the adjudicating authority. As the order communicated was based on a draft and not a final order, the Tribunal found that the order was not the final order of adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants had a prima facie case, stayed the operation of the impugned order, and allowed all the stay applications, disposing of the miscellaneous applications accordingly.