1993 (9) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction and authority of the adjudicating officer under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.

The appeal challenged an order-in-original under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, passed by an adjudicating officer, Shri B.P. Verma, who was the Director of Publications, not the designated Collector of Central Excise. The appellant initially argued that the order had abated due to the repeal of the Act but later contended that the officer lacked jurisdiction as he was not the appointed Collector for Gold Control cases. The appellant highlighted that the officer's authority was derived from a Notification under the Central Excise Act, not the Gold (Control) Act, emphasizing the specific requirements for appointing Gold Control Officers under Section 4 of the G.C.A.

The appellant further argued that the officer's designation as a Collector of Central Excise did not automatically confer authority to adjudicate Gold Control cases, citing legal precedents and the specific provisions governing the appointment and functions of Gold Control Officers. The appellant raised concerns about the officer's self-designation and the lack of official authorization to decide cases under the Gold (Control) Act, stressing the distinction between the powers vested in officers for Central Excise versus Gold Control matters.

On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the officer, by virtue of being designated as a Collector of Central Excise, had the authority to adjudicate Gold Control cases under Section 78A of the G.C.A. The representative argued that the appellant had accepted the officer's jurisdiction during the adjudication process, precluding the challenge before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal scrutinized the legal basis for the officer's authority and jurisdiction in adjudicating Gold Control cases.

After a thorough analysis, the Tribunal acknowledged the Notification appointing the Director of Publications as a Central Excise Officer but noted that it pertained to the Central Excise Act, not the Gold (Control) Act. The Tribunal concurred with the appellant's position that specific appointments of Gold Control Officers were necessary under the G.C.A, and the officer's authority as a Collector of Central Excise did not automatically extend to Gold Control matters without proper notification under Section 4 of the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the officer's adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act was without jurisdiction, emphasizing the lack of official authorization for him to decide such cases. The Tribunal dismissed the Department's contentions due to the absence of a valid notification appointing the Director of Publications as a Gold Control Officer, thereby concluding that the impugned order was invalid and not issued by a competent officer under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.