Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 340 - CESTAT MUMBAIJurisdiction to pass an adjudication order - monetary limit - as per jurisdictional Commissioner the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is not legally correct as the monetary limit for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner is only up to ₹ 5 lakhs in terms of Board's Circular no. 865/3/2008-CX dated 19/02/2008 and, therefore, he filed an appeal before the lower appellate authority on the ground of exceeding jurisdiction - Held that:- The demand has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the said section empowers a ‘Central Excise Officer' to issue notice in cases where Excise duty has not been levied or paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. The ‘Central Excise officer' referred to therein is the officer competent to assess and determine the duty liability. Under the Excise law it is the Superintendent of Central Excise who is the assessing officer and, therefore, the notice issued by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who is a superior authority, is perfectly valid in law and, therefore, he is competent to adjudicate the duty not levied or short-levied or erroneously refunded. Power of adjudication prescribed by the Board vide a Circular dated 19/02/2008 is only an administrative order and it is meant for smooth and efficient running of the administration. Such circular cannot take away the power vested on a Central Excise officer under the provisions of the Central Excise Act. See Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 2005 (2005 (2) TMI 136 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein held that the administrative directions of the Central Board of Excise & Customs allocating different works to various classes of officers cannot cut down jurisdiction vested in them by statute and may be followed by them at best as a matter of propriety. Thus the Assistant Commissioner, who is a Central Excise Officer was statutorily competent to decide the matter. Therefore, setting aside such an order by the lower appellate authority, though on appeal filed by the Revenue, is clearly unsustainable and bad in law and, therefore, the order of the lower appellate authority has to be set aside.
|