1990 (8) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector under Rule 49 of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta, setting aside the order-in-original passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The dispute arose from the storage of molasses by the respondent in open katcha pits, leading to a demand for Central Excise duty. The Collector (Appeals) held that the Assistant Collector lacked jurisdiction due to the amount of duty involved, setting aside the order. The main issue was whether the Assistant Collector was competent to conduct proceedings under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules.

The first proviso of Rule 49 requires the manufacturer to pay duty on goods not accounted for, unless lost or destroyed by natural causes. The proper officer, as per a notification, is designated as the Superintendent for Rule 49. The Assistant Collector's jurisdiction is limited by monetary thresholds, with the Collector having authority for amounts exceeding Rs. 5,000. In this case, the demand exceeded the Assistant Collector's limit, leading to the Collector (Appeals) ruling the order as without jurisdiction. The Assistant Collector's order was found to be invalid due to lack of monetary jurisdiction, as per the notification and rules.

The judgment also referenced previous CEGAT rulings emphasizing that enforcing B-2 bonds falls under court jurisdiction, not the adjudicating authority. The second proviso of Rule 49 was discussed, but it was noted that the first proviso was applicable in this case. The Assistant Collector's order was critiqued for lacking clarity on the basis for the demand, and the Collector (Appeals) decision was upheld based on the Assistant Collector's lack of authority under the first proviso of Rule 49. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Collector (Appeals) decision on the Assistant Collector's jurisdictional limitations.

In a separate opinion, another judge concurred with the finding that the Assistant Collector's order lacked jurisdiction. However, it was noted that the reference to the second proviso in the Collector (Appeals) order was incorrect. The Assistant Collector's order was deemed invalid not due to the second proviso but because he lacked authority under the first proviso of Rule 49. The appeal was deemed unsuccessful based on the Assistant Collector's lack of authority under the applicable rule.