Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2016 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1015 - AT - Central ExciseMaintainability - lack of jurisdiction of Central Excise officers in Sikar, Rajasthan for initiating action regarding the duty liability of the appellant unit which is located in Pant Nagar, Uttrakhand - Held that:- in terms of jurisdiction of various officers as notified by Ministry of Finance in terms of power conferred by sub-Rule (2) of Rule 3 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 the appellant fall under the jurisdiction of Meerut-I Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner Sikar who is falling under the jurisdiction of Commissioner at Jaipur in Rajasthan has no jurisdiction or power to initiate action against the appellant unit. It is seen that the appellant did not take this objection before the lower Authorities. However, since this is a basic legal issue affecting the very legality of the proceedings the same has to be examined by the Tribunal for a decision. Revenue is not able to place on record any legal authority empowering the officers working in Rajasthan to initiate proceedings against the appellant unit in Uttrakhand to determine the eligibility or otherwise of the appellant for a duty benefit. Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine - seizure of goods and truck - denial of exemption under Notification 50/2003-CE - appellants were not manufacturing the aerial bunched cables in their unit at Uttrakhand whereas procuring these items from elsewhere and carrying out some process of painting, numbering and putting inspection seal and clearing them without payment of duty from their Salodipura Godown in Rajasthan - Held that:- it is noted that if the seized goods were not manufactured by the appellant in their Pant Nagar unit, the question of claiming or denying area based exemption on such goods does not arise. The duty demand, if any, should be against actual manufacturers of the said goods. The actual manufacturer has not been identified. Accordingly, the show cause notice and the proceedings consequent upon the said notice are without jurisdiction and, hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant
|