9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Central Excise duty demand, penalty imposition, appeal to Appellate Authority, jurisdiction of Tribunal, transfer of appeals to Central Government, plea of limitation.
Central Excise Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition: The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle parts, faced allegations of shortages in certain products during an annual stock taking. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise issued a show cause notice demanding duty and imposing a penalty. The petitioner contended that discrepancies were due to accounting errors and human mistakes. After a hearing, duty was imposed, and a penalty was levied. An appeal to the Appellate Authority resulted in the appeal being allowed, allowing the petitioner to adjust shortages against excesses. Appeal and Jurisdiction of Tribunal: The petitioner's appeals were further allowed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for other years. However, the Collector of Central Excise directed appeals to be filed before the Tribunal, leading to a jurisdictional issue. The Tribunal held that loss of goods appeals should be filed before the Central Government, not the Tribunal. The petitioner objected to the transfer of appeals, citing lack of jurisdiction and denial of the plea of limitation. Transfer of Appeals and Plea of Limitation: The Tribunal's order to transfer appeals to the Central Government was challenged by the petitioner, arguing that the Tribunal lacked the authority to transfer appeals and deprived the petitioner of raising the plea of limitation. The Tribunal's reliance on Rule 41 of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 was contested, emphasizing that the Tribunal cannot transfer appeals to override statutory provisions. Decision and Conclusion: The High Court quashed the part of the Tribunal's order directing the transfer of appeals to the Central Government, stating that the proper forum for such appeals was the Central Government under Section 35-EE of the Act. The Court ruled that the Department should take back the appeal papers for proper presentation before the appropriate jurisdiction. The Court upheld the petitioner's arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and denial of the plea of limitation, allowing the writ petition and rejecting the Department's contentions.
|
