9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -in-original had abated in view of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act. But subsequently in view of the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal, he did not press this point further and instead he raised a point regarding jurisdiction and authority of the adjudicating officer, Shri B.P. Verma. 3. He stated that adjudicating officer, Shri B.P. Verma was Director of Publications when he heard the matter and passed this order and he was not the Collector of Central Excise, (Adjudication) as mentioned in the order. He drew attention to Notification No. 464/86-C.E., dated 9-12-1986 and C.B.E.C s order No. 208/27/86-EX. 6, dated 9-12-1986 in this connection and stated that this Notification vests the power of Collector of Central Excise, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot become Collector of Central Excise. Had this been so, two Deputy Collectors of Central Excise who had been invested with the powers of Collector under two Notifications No. 5/84, dated 11-2-1984 and 190/76, dated 12-6-1976 should also call themselves as Collector of Central Excise and not as Deputy Collectors which is not the fact. 6. Similarly some Additional District Magistrates are vested with the powers of the D.M but cannot designate themselves as District Magistrates. 7. It is also his contention that in any eventuality the Notification No. 464/86 and the CBEC s order were issued only under the authority of the Central Excise Act and Rules and not the Gold (Control) Act. In this connection, he would like to invite attention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate by virtue of Section 78A of G.C.A. without limit. 13. Furthermore, having accepted the jurisdiction of the Collector at the time of adjudication, it was not open for the appellant to raise this issue before CEGAT. In this connection, he would rely on the ratio of the orders reported in 1990 (47) E.L.T. 286. 14. On merits, it is an admitted fact that 27 cases of new gold ornaments weighing 4.670 grammes are found in excess when compared with the statutory records and no satisfactory explanation was given by the partner and Manager who were present at the time of the visit of officers. Their letter stating that they have forgotten to add the weight of the pearls is not acceptable as in the Registers gross weight has to be entered. Mor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Officers or to invest Central Excise Officers or Collectors of Central Excise with the powers of Gold Control Officers competent to adjudicate Gold Control Cases. 17. The learned Counsel is also right in pointing out that merely because some of the powers of Collector of Central Excise were invested in the Directorate of Publications, he did not become Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi for all purposes. 18. He was also right in pointing out that S.O. 139, dated 9-1-1963 was issued under Defence of India Rules, 1962 [and not under Gold (Control) Act] and even this vests the Collector of Central Excise only with the limited power of confiscation of gold. 19. We, however, also observe that S.O. 2320 (1-8-1968 - GS II) had continue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
