1998 (7) TMI 376 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether Asst. Commissioner could adjudicate cases beyond administrative restrictions imposed by circulars and notifications.

Analysis:
The Appeals involved a common issue of whether the Asst. Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate cases where the duty amount exceeded Rs. 50,000, despite administrative restrictions. The Commissioner (Appeals) had previously held that the Assistant Commissioners' powers were restricted based on certain circulars. The Government of India had issued notifications conferring powers of confiscation and penalty without limits, but administrative instructions under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules imposed restrictions. The main question was whether the Asst. Commissioner could adjudicate cases beyond these administrative limits.

The Tribunal noted that powers of adjudication, including confiscation and penalty, are governed by Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Central Government could confer these powers on any officer, as per the proviso in the Act. Notifications were issued by the Government of India granting powers without limit, but administrative instructions under Rule 233 imposed restrictions for administrative purposes. The issue arose as to whether the Asst. Commissioner could adjudicate cases beyond these administrative restrictions.

Section 37B authorized the Government to issue instructions and directions related to value and classification, while the Central Board of Excise and Customs could issue supplementary instructions under Rule 233 for administrative purposes. The Tribunal clarified that notifications issued under Section 33 of the Act would prevail over supplemental instructions issued by the Central Board. Non-observance of administrative instructions might be termed as an administrative irregularity, but the exercise of powers under Section 33 was not affected. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no legal infirmity in the orders passed by the Asst. Collector/Asst. Commissioner. Consequently, the cases were remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration on merits, and the Appeals of the Revenue were allowed by way of remand.