9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (12) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed by the respondents indicating their stand for the purpose of disposal of these writ petitions. 3. In Writ Petition No. 6709 of 1994 the petitioner has sought for a Writ of Prohibition to restrain the respondents 2 and 3 from taking any further proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice OC. 54/93 dated 11-01-1993 stating that the respondents 2 and 3 have no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings where the duty involved is more than Rs. 50,000/- as per Central Board of Excise and Custom (for Short, C.B.E.C) Circular No. 3 of 1992 dated 14-5-1992. 4. The petitioner placed an order dated 5-10-1989 for importing of a diesel generator set from East Germany for which the price payable was Rs. 20,96,250/- C.I.T., Madras after obtaining necessary import licence from the Controller of Imports and Exports, New Delhi : the petitioner had also opened an irrevocable letter of credit through the Indian Bank in favour of 'Technocommerz VE AHB', Berlin for the said amount. The set was imported as a single unit weighing 24.99 tonnes; the goods were cleared on payment of appropriate duty; and the set was classified under sub-heading 8502.13. Subsequently the said diesel generator set was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bill, delegating powers laying down monetary limits for adjudication as follows :- Designation of Officers Amount of duty involved 1. Collector ... Without limit 2. Additional Collecctor/Deputy Collector .... Up to Rs. ten lakhs. 3. Assistant Collector .... Upto Rs. fifty thousand. NOTES. (a) Where simultaneously different cases involving the same issue are due to be adjudicated in a Collectorate all such cases will be adjudicated by the officer competent to decide the case where the duty involved is the highest amount. (b) Confiscation of goods, and levy of penalties will follow from above powers of adjudication, based on merits of the case." 7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the pecuniary powers for making a demand under Section 11A have been prescribed by the first respondent and all officers functioning in the Central Excise Department are bound by these limits, and therefore the pecuniary limits of the second respondent is Rs. 50,000/- except in the case of approval of a classification list or a price list. Apart from the question of pecuni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petitioners in these Writ petitions by the third respondent to show cause to the second respondent are perfectly valid; that the said Circular No. 3/92 dated 14-5-1992 issued by the first respondent is applicable only to offence cases falling under Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not to demands arising out of classification and valuation matters. This is made clear by the words other than the cases relating to approval of classification lists and price lists". Since the action initiated by the respondents 2 and 3 is out of their competence and they are acting in accordance with law the writ of prohibition cannot be issued against them. As regards the submission of the petitioner that the Assistant Collector is likely to confirm the demand it is stated that it is an unwarranted presumption. The adjudication proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules. The Writ petitions are filed with the sole intention of delaying the adjudication proceedings to gain financial accommodation. The respondents in the counter affidavits have also stated with regard to the factual aspects in all the writ p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n alternative and efficacious remedy available to them. (ii) The monetary limit prescribed in the circular in question is applicable only to offence cases falling under Section 33 of the Act. (iii) The show cause notice issued and proposed actions are within the competence of the respondents 2 and 3 and therefore the writ petitions seeking writ of prohibition are not maintainable; (iv) The apprehension of the petitioners that the Assistant Collector is likely to confirm the demand is unwarranted presumption; under Section 35 (f) of the Act the appellate authority has power to grant stay; and the adjudication proceedings will be conducted as prescribed under the Act and the Rules; and (v) Having regard to the various provisions of the Act and Rules it cannot be said that the respondents 2 and 3 have no jurisdication to issue show cause notice leading to adjudication proceedings are cited. In support of these submissions few decisions are cited. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel representing either parties. Having regard to the facts of the cases as can be gathered from the pleadings and contentions urged by the learned counsel f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
