9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 265 - AT - Central ExciseLack of jurisdiction by the Assistant Commissioner - order set aside for want of jurisdiction. - Determination of duty and imposition of penalty - Held that - In the present case is the issue is on valuation and re-determination of duty and imposition of penalty. Therefore the impugned order setting aside the original order on the jurisdiction is not justified. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merits. See PAHWA CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI 2005 (2) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that the order cannot be set aside for want of jurisdiction We direct the Commissioner (Appeals) after following the principle of natural justice to decide the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of the receipt of the order.
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner in valuation and classification disputes. 2. Discharge of excise duty on behalf of principal manufacturer. 3. Applicability of penalty under Rule 173Q. Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner: The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner in determining the valuation of goods manufactured on job work basis. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, contending that the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to decide cases of valuation and classification. The respondent had paid duty based on the cost of raw materials and job charges, rather than the correct value as per the sale price of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal held that the Assistant Commissioner was competent to decide the valuation issue and demand the differential duty, rejecting the respondent's argument that the issue fell outside the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction. Discharge of Excise Duty: The respondent, a job worker, manufactured goods using raw materials supplied by the principal manufacturer and discharged the excise duty on behalf of the principal supplier. However, the respondent did not adopt the correct value while paying the excise duty, leading to the Adjudicating Authority demanding differential duty based on the sale price of the principal manufacturer. The Tribunal found that the issue primarily revolved around the determination of the value of the goods manufactured and cleared by the respondent for the principal manufacturer. It was established that the Assistant Commissioner had the authority to decide the valuation issue and demand the differential duty. Applicability of Penalty under Rule 173Q: The respondent argued that the issue extended beyond valuation to include the imposition of penalty under Rule 173Q, contending that this aspect did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Tribunal focused on the valuation dispute and the Assistant Commissioner's competence in deciding such matters. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of penalty did not alter the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction in determining the correct value for excise duty purposes. Ultimately, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits within a specified timeframe, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of jurisdiction, excise duty discharge, and penalty applicability, providing a comprehensive overview of the Tribunal's decision in the case.
|
