1998 (5) TMI 245 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Determining the powers of Assistant Collector/Commissioner to adjudicate cases with duty exceeding Rs. 50,000.

Analysis:
The judgment involved 34 appeals with a common issue of whether the Assistant Collector/Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate cases where duty exceeded Rs. 50,000. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals citing lack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Collector. The dispute stemmed from the Central Board of Excise and Customs issuing instructions regarding the powers of adjudicating authorities. The proviso to Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 allowed the Central Board of Excise and Customs to confer powers on officers. Notifications from the Ministry of Finance granted powers of confiscation and penalty without limit to Deputy Collector/Assistant Collector and the Superintendent of Central Excise. The judgment deliberated on whether the powers of the Assistant Collector were limited by circulars issued by the Board or if they could exercise powers without limit as per notifications.

The Central Board of Excise and Customs had issued circulars restricting the powers of the Assistant Collector, which raised the question of whether circulars or notifications should take precedence. The judgment examined Section 37B, which allowed for the issuance of circulars for uniformity in value and classification matters. It was concluded that notifications, in this case, held precedence over circulars as they covered the specific aspect under consideration. The judgment clarified that the circulars administratively limited the powers of the Assistant Collector and any exceeding of these powers would be deemed an administrative irregularity rather than a legal infirmity.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector were not legally flawed despite the circulars limiting their powers. As the Commissioner (Appeals) did not assess the appeals on merits, the Tribunal remanded the appeals back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a thorough review, providing the respondents an opportunity to be heard in person. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by remand, ensuring a fair consideration of the cases on their merits.