2005 (4) TMI 68 - SC - Central Excise

Whether assesse were not entitled to the benefit of the notification for the period 1994-95 to 1997 and that after that period they were classifiable under Tariff Head 6807.90 instead of 6807.20 as classified by them? The notices had been issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Held that - Nothing could be shown to us to indicate that blocks of the kind manufactured by the Appellants are used in pre-fabricated building. As there is no material on record it is clear that the blocks manufactured by the Appellants cannot fall under Tariff Item 6807.20. It must necessarily fall under Tariff Item 6807.90. Section 2(b) defines the Central Excise Officer and it is mentioned therein that any Officer of the Central Excise Department or any person who has been invested by the Board with any of the powers of the Central Excise Officer would be a Central Excise Officer. Thus, the Board has power to invest any Central Excise Officer or any other Officer with powers of Central Excise Officer. At the highest all that can be said is Central Excise Officers, as a matter of propriety, must follow the directions and only deal with the work which has been allotted to them by virtue of these Circulars. But if an Officer still issues a notice or adjudicates contrary to the Circulars it would not be a ground for holding that he had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice or to set aside the adjudication. Assessee appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of the product under Tariff Head 6807.20 or 6807.90.
2. Jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue show-cause notices.

Analysis:

Classification Issue:
The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of the product manufactured by the Appellants under Tariff Head 6807.20 or 6807.90. The Tribunal and Commissioner found that the blocks manufactured did not fall under Tariff Item 6807.20 as they were not used in pre-fabricated buildings. The absence of evidence showing such usage led to the conclusion that the product must be classified under Tariff Item 6807.90. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the correct classification of goods under the relevant tariff items.

Jurisdiction Issue:
Another key issue raised was the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue show-cause notices. The Appellants argued that the notices were without jurisdiction as they were issued by the Superintendent and not a higher authority as per certain Circulars. The judgment clarified that prior to 14-5-1992, only the Collector of Central Excise could issue notices in cases of fraud or willful misstatement. However, post the amendment to Section 11A, any Central Excise Officer could issue such notices. The judgment highlighted that the Board's Circulars were administrative directions and did not limit the jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers. It was concluded that the Superintendent had the jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice, and the Deputy Commissioner had the authority to adjudicate the matter.

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision regarding the classification of the product under Tariff Head 6807.90 and affirmed the jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Central Excise to issue show-cause notices. The judgment emphasized the importance of evidence in classification disputes and clarified the role of Central Excise Officers in issuing notices post the relevant statutory amendments.