1994 (8) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and validity of the adjudicating authority's order.
2. Discrepancies between the draft order and the final order.
3. Procedural irregularities in issuing the order.
4. Contempt proceedings against the adjudicating officer.
5. Remand for de novo adjudication.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Validity of the Adjudicating Authority's Order:
The primary issue was whether the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, was valid. The appellants contended that the order dated 2-7-1990 was without jurisdiction as the adjudicating authority, Shri Gowri Shankar, had relinquished charge on 17-4-1990. The Tribunal noted that the draft order was signed on 16-4-1990, but the final order communicated to the appellants was dated 2-7-1990 and was not signed by the Collector but merely attested by another officer. The Tribunal concluded that no final order in the eye of law was passed by Shri Gowri Shankar, and the impugned order suffered from a lack of jurisdiction and required to be set aside.

2. Discrepancies Between the Draft Order and the Final Order:
The Tribunal observed several discrepancies between the draft order signed on 16-4-1990 and the final order dated 2-7-1990. The draft order contained figures supplied by the appellants in response to a letter dated 25-4-1990, which could not have been available before that date. Additionally, there were material differences in the sub-paragraphs and corrections made in different inks without proper initialing. These discrepancies led the Tribunal to question the authenticity and validity of the final order.

3. Procedural Irregularities in Issuing the Order:
The Tribunal found that the draft order signed by the Collector on 16-4-1990 did not have any direction on the note-sheet for issuing the order. The notes in the file ended abruptly on 15-3-1990, with a fresh note recorded on 4-6-1990. Pages 245/c to 314/c were missing, indicating procedural irregularities in the handling of the file. The Tribunal concluded that the purported order communicated to the appellants was not a valid adjudication order as it was unsigned by the adjudicating Collector and differed materially from the draft order.

4. Contempt Proceedings Against the Adjudicating Officer:
The Tribunal took a serious view of Shri Gowri Shankar's failure to appear before the Tribunal to explain the discrepancies despite multiple notices. The Tribunal directed the Registry to issue a notice to Shri Gowri Shankar to show cause why proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against him. However, these proceedings were stayed by the Delhi High Court.

5. Remand for De Novo Adjudication:
Given the procedural irregularities and discrepancies, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for de novo adjudication. The Tribunal referred to similar cases where orders were set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication. The majority opinion concurred that the purported orders received by the appellants were non est in the eyes of law and required fresh adjudication by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh.

Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the purported orders received by the appellants were set aside, and the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication to the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, for passing fresh orders in accordance with the law.

Dated: 11-9-1993
Sd/- (Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J)
Sd/- (S.K. Bhatnagar) Vice President

← Previous Next →