1998 (9) TMI 308 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudicating the Modvat matter

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The dispute centered around the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudicating a Modvat matter involving a credit of Rs. 1,19,495. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) concurred with the appellant's counsel that the Asstt. Commissioner had exceeded his jurisdiction without delving into the merits of the case.

2. In the absence of representation from the respondents, M/s. Mukti Transformers Ltd., the Tribunal proceeded with the matter as the facts were undisputed, and the issue at hand pertained solely to jurisdiction. The Tribunal decided to address the matter after hearing the appellant's representative, Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR.

3. Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR, argued that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise was authorized to adjudicate Modvat matters involving duty amounts up to Rs. 2 lakh. He referenced Circular No. 299/15/97 issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, categorizing cases based on the amount of duty involved for adjudication purposes, with Asstt. Commissioners empowered to handle matters up to Rs. 2 lakh.

4. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. M/s. Jay Dee Agro Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., where it was established that the powers granted to Asstt. Collectors under relevant circulars were administrative in nature, and exceeding those powers did not constitute a legal flaw.

5. By analyzing the Circular dated 27-2-1997, the Tribunal noted that it allowed Asstt. Commissioners to adjudicate Modvat matters where the duty amount was up to Rs. 2 lakh if the show cause notice had not been adjudicated by January 28, 1997. In this instance, the adjudication order was issued on February 21, 1997, falling within the permissible timeline for the Asstt. Commissioner to handle the matter.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had erred in assessing the jurisdictional aspect of the case.

7. The appellate authority's failure to delve into the case's merits and its sole focus on jurisdiction led the Tribunal to remand the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for a comprehensive review of the case's substance and the issuance of a detailed, appealable order after providing the appellants with a fair opportunity.

8. Ultimately, the appeal by the Revenue was allowed for remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of the case on its merits by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).