1994 (4) TMI 141 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of proforma credit under Rule 56A.
2. Authority of Addl. Collector to adjudicate the case.
3. Validity of the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by M/s. National Steel Rolling Mills against the Addl. Collector's order demanding excise duty for wrong availment of proforma credit not admissible during the period from March 1988 to February 1989. The appellant had utilized proforma credit on iron and steel products, which was not allowed as per Notification No. 84/87-C.E. The Asstt. Collector confirmed the duty demand, leading to an appeal to the Collector (Appeals) who remanded the case for de novo adjudication due to fresh issues raised by the appellant. The appellant argued that they had filed a declaration for availing modvat credit, and the impugned order was illegal as it was passed by an officer other than the one designated for adjudication.

2. The appellant contended that the Addl. Collector lacked authority to adjudicate the case, as the remand was specifically to the Asstt. Collector to examine the issues of time bar and filing a declaration. The ld. Advocate cited precedents to support the argument that a senior officer cannot assume the powers of a junior officer for adjudication. The Tribunal's judgment in a similar case highlighted the importance of adhering to the directions of the remand order. It was concluded that the Addl. Collector had overstepped his jurisdiction by issuing a fresh show cause notice and adding new points for adjudication, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law.

3. After considering the submissions and the remand order, it was found that the Addl. Collector had no authority to examine the issues specified in the remand order, which were to be addressed by the Asstt. Collector. Following the precedent set by the Tribunal, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. However, the order of remand by the Collector (Appeals) remained valid and needed to be decided by the designated Asstt. Collector. The decision emphasized the importance of procedural adherence and the limits of authority in adjudicating such cases under the Central Excise Rules, 1944.