1987 (11) TMI 82 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issues of jurisdiction of the Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise), the validity of the show cause notice, the powers of the Collector of Central Excise, the authority of the Director, the alleged bias of the Director, the plurality of officers involved, and the applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Jurisdiction of Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise):
The judgment upholds that the Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise) was properly invested with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise, allowing for notice to show cause despite inter-Collectorate ramification and large estimated evasion of excise duty.

Validity of Show Cause Notice:
It is determined that the show cause notice issued by the Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise) is valid, as it refers to contraventions of various Central Excise Rules by the Indian Tobacco Co. Ltd. and its outside contract Manufacturers, including the appellant, with estimated evasion amounts specified.

Powers of the Collector of Central Excise:
The judgment clarifies that the Collector of Central Excise, Coimbatore, is the proper authority to issue notices, as defined by the Act and Rules, with the inclusive definition of 'Collector' encompassing specially authorized Central Excise Officers.

Authority of the Director and Bias Allegations:
The judgment dismisses claims of bias against the Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise), emphasizing that the show cause notice was issued impartially based on evidence, and that the Director's involvement in investigations does not invalidate the notice.

Plurality of Officers and Applicability of Rule 9(2):
Regarding the involvement of multiple officers and the absence of allegations of clandestine removal, the judgment concludes that there is no overlapping of jurisdiction, and the full inquiry into the alleged evasion should proceed to determine the applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules.

Conclusion:
Ultimately, the appeals are dismissed, affirming the authority of the Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise) and the validity of the show cause notice. An oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused after the pronouncement of the judgment.