1995 (9) TMI 71 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of transfer orders.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Compliance with interim orders.
4. Administrative nature of transfer orders.
5. Jurisdiction and powers of Central Excise Officers.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Transfer Orders:
The petitioners challenged the transfer orders dated 21st March 1989 and 5th January 1990, arguing that the transfer of their cases from the Bombay Collectorate to the Director General of Inspection, New Delhi, and subsequently to the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, was illegal and void. The court noted that the initial transfer order dated 21st March 1989 was rescinded by the Board's order dated 5th January 1990, which reassigned the cases to the Collector of Central Excise, Delhi. The court held that the Board has the jurisdiction to invest a person with the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Act, and this includes the power to transfer cases for administrative reasons.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners argued that the transfer order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as it was issued without giving them a hearing. The court examined whether an opportunity of hearing was required before transferring the cases. It was held that the act of transferring cases is an administrative decision with no civil consequences affecting the rights of the petitioners. The court cited previous judgments from the Madras, Delhi, and Calcutta High Courts, which upheld similar transfer orders and concluded that the principles of natural justice do not apply to administrative decisions of this nature.

3. Compliance with Interim Orders:
The petitioners contended that the transfer order dated 5th January 1990 was in breach of the interim order passed by the court on 18th December 1989. The court clarified that the interim order only restrained the respondents from taking steps pursuant to the show cause notices and did not prohibit the rescission of the earlier transfer order. The court found no violation of the interim order as the respondents were permitted to allow the adjudicating authority to proceed with the matter.

4. Administrative Nature of Transfer Orders:
The court emphasized that the transfer of cases was purely an administrative act based on administrative exigencies. It was aimed at centralizing similar cases to avoid inconsistent decisions and expedite the adjudication process. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that the transfer order was arbitrary or required a hearing, stating that such administrative decisions do not necessitate the application of the principles of natural justice.

5. Jurisdiction and Powers of Central Excise Officers:
The court examined the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It was held that the Board has the authority to appoint persons to exercise the powers of a Central Excise Officer throughout India. The court noted that there is no territorial limitation on the powers of a Collector of Central Excise, and the Board can invest such powers in any officer for the purpose of investigation and adjudication.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the transfer orders and rejecting the contention that the principles of natural justice were violated. It was concluded that the transfer of cases was an administrative decision within the jurisdiction of the Board, and the petitioners had no substantive right to have their cases adjudicated only by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay. The interim reliefs were vacated, and the petitioners' request to continue the interim relief was denied.