9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (6) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notices exceeded Rs. 50,000/- in each case and that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise was not competent to adjudicate the cases where the duty involved was above Rs. 50,000/- in terms of Board's particular Circular No. 208/26/92 CX-6 (Circular No. 3/92 CX-6), dated 14-5-1992. The appellate authority agreed with the Department that the adjudicating authority had exceeded his jurisdiction and has exercised powers beyond his competency. The appeals filed by the Deptt. were allowed and the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise were set aside with the directions that the consequent action to remedy the situation may be taken by the Deptt. 2. As all the appeals arise out of common Order-in-Appeals and involve similar issue for consideration, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Shri P.S. Bedi, Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted on 22-5-2000 when the matter came up for hearing, that Board's circular was not binding on the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise in view of the powers conferred on him under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was his plea that on merits the matter already stan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (2) The Assistant Collector of Central Excise or, as the case may be, the Collector of Central Excise shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1), determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person (non being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. (3) For the purposes of this section, (i) refund , includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (ii) relevant date means, - (a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid - (A) where under the rules made under this Act a monthly return, showing particulars of the duty paid on the excisable goods removed during the month to which the said return relates, is to be filed by a manufacturer or producer or a licensee of a warehouse, as the case may be, the date on which such return is so filed ; (B) where no monthly return as aforesaid is filed, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if, for the words Central Excise Officer , the words Collector of Central Excise and for the words six months the words five years were substituted. Explanation. Where the service of the notice is stayed by an order of a court, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the aforesaid period of six months or five years, as the case may be. (2) The Central Excise Office shall, after considering the representation, if any, made by the person on whom notice is served under sub-section (1), determine the amount of duty of excise due from such person (not being in excess of the amount specified in the notice) and thereupon such person shall pay the amount so determined. (3) For the purposes of this section, (i) refund , includes rebate of duty of excise on excisable goods exported out of India or on excisable materials used in the manufacture of goods which are exported out of India; (ii) relevant date means, - (a) in the case of excisable goods on which duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short-levied or short-paid (A) where under the rules made under this Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X. 6, dated 14-5-1992 [From F. No. 208/26/92-CX.6 Government of India Central Board of Excise Customs New Delhi Subject : Powers of adjudication of officers of Central Excise - Provisions relating to appeals - Changes consequent to amendment of Central Excises Salt Act in Finance Act, 1992 - Regarding. Reference to clause 116 of the Finance Bill 1992 which seeks to amend the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Bill has received President s assent today. Consequent to this amendment the issue of laying down monetary limits for powers of adjudication of officers of different ranks has been examined by the Board and it has been decided to supersede all existing instructions on the subject and to lay down following monetary limits for adjudication of Central Excise cases other than the cases relating to approval of classification list and price lists. Designation of officers Amount of duty involved 1. Collector Without limit 2. Additional Collector/Deputy Collector Up to Rs. ten lakhs 3. Assistant Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms are to be treated to have been issued under Section 37B of the Act even when such provisions were not recited in the said Circular. Such Circulars were not advisory in character but were binding on the Central Excise Officers. Para-14 from that decision is extracted below :- 14. We reject the submission to the contrary made by ld. Counsel for the Revenue and in the affidavit by M.K. Gupta, working as Director in the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. One should have thought that an office of the Ministry of Finance would have greater respect for circulars such as these issued by the Board; which also operates under the aegis of the Ministry of Finance, for it is the Board which is by statute entrusted with the task of classifying excisable goods uniformly. The whole objective of such circulars is to adopt a uniform practice and to inform the trade as to how a particular product will be treated for the purposes of Excise duty. It does not lie in the mouth of the Revenue to repudiate a circular issued by the Board on the basis that it is inconsistent with a statutory provision. Consistency and discipline are of far greater importance than the winning or losing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 168-331 dated 25-7-1995. The interests of justice are paramount and the course of justice could not be allowed to be thwarted by the indiscretion of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise in this case (refer Umrah Khatoon v. Mohd. Zafir Khan - 1997 AIR SCW 1412). 11. The appellants have referred to the Tribunal's decisions in the case of (1) Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Jaypee Agro Chemicals Ltd. - 1999 (109) E.L.T. 819 (Tribunal) and (2) Commissioner of Central Excise v. Jaipur Polyspin Ltd. - 1999 (113) E.L.T. 265 (Tribunal). In these decisions, the Tribunal had observed that by issue of Circular No. 3/92 CX6 dated 14-5-1992 and Circular No. 299/15/97 CX dated 27-2-1997, the Central Board of Excise Customs had administratively limited the powers of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and that exceeding these powers could not be created as a legal infirmity. The matter in both the cases had been remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for considering the matter on merits. We find that in these decisions, there was no discussion with reference to the budgetary changes effected in 1992 -budget, and the view had been taken with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
