9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Collector of Central Excise, Madras and in less detail by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, respectively, in the Order-in-Original dated 25-5-1977 and the Order-in-Appeal dated 20-2-1980. 5. Shri Margabandhu is the proprietor of Messrs. Anna Match Works. Anna Match Works, Kalyanam Match Works, Mahalakshmi Match Works and Saravana Match Works are all situated at Gudiyattam, which is within the Collectorate of Central Excise, Madras. On 20-10-1971, the Central Excise Officers of the Madras Central Excise Collectorate along with the Central Excise Officers of the Hyderabad Central Excise Collectorate searched two houses in Yadamari in the Hyderabad Central Excise Collectorate and seized altogether 2336 bundles of matches. Some of these bundles were found to bear duplicate or triplicate serial numbers. All the bundles bore the labels of different match factories in Gudiyattam, including the four match factories of the respective appellants. Statements were recorded from various persons including Shri Margabandhu and other persons who were said to have transported the matches as lorry drivers, or to have accompanied the matches when transported. Investigations were also carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine of Rs. 4,484/- in lieu of confiscation and other charges as found payable under the law. He imposed various penalties on the respective match factories. He also imposed separately a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on Shri Margabandhu. As regards Shri Sankaran, the Collector held on the evidence that he was not the real owner of the goods, and refrained from imposing any penalty on him. 9. Appeals against the above order were filed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The Board held that the penal action taken by the Collector was sustainable in law. The Board however added that penalties at lower rates would meet the ends of justice, and accordingly scaled down the penalties imposed by the Collector. (However, there are some anomalies as between the original and scaled down penalties which will be referred to later in this order). It is against this order of the Board that the present appeals are directed." 3. When the appeals were heard, Shri Raghunathan, who had appeared inter alia for the present applicants made four main submissions, on the following points :- (i) The Collector of Central Excise, Madras, had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases ; (ii) In view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erritorial jurisdiction the illicit removal was alleged to have taken place, Shri Raghunathan stated that he had not been able to find any judicial decision either way. 7. Shri Raghunathan was also asked whether he could point out any specific prejudice which had been caused to the appellants because of the cases having been adjudicated by the Collector of Central Excise, Madras and not the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. Shri Raghunathan could not point out any specific prejudice, but contended that in law the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, had no jurisdiction. 8. In the present context, it is not necessary to set out the arguments of Shri Raghunathan with reference to the points at (ii), (iii) and (iv) in para 3 above. 9. On behalf of the Department Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative, had opposed Shri Raghunathan s argument on the question of jurisdiction. Shri Choudhury pointed out that Gudiyattam was within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras. Since the offences were those of illicit removal from factories in Gudiyattam, the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, was clearly entitled to adjudicate those offences. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how it can be contended that the Collector with territorial jurisdiction over their factories was not competent to adjudicate the case. 42. In this connection we may observe that there are situations where the law contemplates more than one authority having jurisdiction in a particular matter. It is well known that penalty proceedings under the Central Excises and Salt Act are of a quasi-criminal nature. In a somewhat similar situation. Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that an offence may be inquired into or tried by a court having jurisdiction over any of a number of local areas. On that analogy it could be said that in the present case the jurisdiction to adjudicate could have been exercised by either of the two Collectors. 43. We, therefore, find no substance in the argument that the proceedings are vitiated by lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicating officer." 11. The Tribunal rejected the appeal before it, except for setting aside the separate penalty imposed on Shri Margabandhu, proprietor of Anna Match Works, and reducing the penalty on M/s. Mahalakshmi Match Works (who are not parties to the present Reference Application). 12. The two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the time limit for making such a reference was directory and not mandatory and that a reference could, if otherwise admissible, be made even after expiry of the time limit. Following the same principle, the Bench overrules Shri Bhatia s objection and proceeded to hear Shri Raghunathan. 17. Shri Raghunathan reiterated the submissions made in the reference application, namely that on the question raised in the reference application, there was no decision by any Court and therefore that the issue deserved to be referred to the High Court for a decision in the interests of both the Department and the trade. 18. The Bench indicated that it was inclined to agree that there was justification for a reference on the point of law involved, though the question would have to be reformulated. The Bench incidentally pointed out to Shri Raghunathan that .certain of the submissions in the reference application seemed to be based on an incomplete understanding of the Tribunal s order or of the relevant judicial decisions. Thus, in the reference application it had been stated that the Tribunal expressed that under Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code any one of the two Collectorates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tia that the present Bench was not a forum to discuss or decide whether the Tribunal s findings were correct. The question was only whether the applicants had made out a case for reference to the High Court on a question of law arising out of the order. Shri Bhatia was asked to state whether he could cite any specific judicial decisions which would obviate the need for a reference to the High Court. He submitted that he could not cite any such specific judicial decision in this regard. 22. The Bench then confirmed its tentative decision to refer to the Hon ble High Court the question as re-formulated (vide para 19 above). The question as reformulated was again read out. Neither Shri Raghunathan nor Shri Bhatia had any further comments to make. 23. This statement of the case was made out and copies made available to both parties. The statement of the case was taken up for consideration on 20-9-1985. Neither Shri Raghunathan nor Shri Bhatia suggested any amendment to the statement. Accordingly the same is taken as finalised. 24. We accordingly, in terms of Section 350 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, refer the following question of law arising out of our order dated 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
