TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r s order in such circumstances would lie to the Collector (Appeals) and not to the Tribunal. Hence the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in the order dated 11-10-1985 was in keeping with identical orders in the past. 2. On behalf of the applicant, learned SDR Shri Senthivel stated that the application of the Collector had been filed in time and though the prayer in the annexure-A to the application was manifold, it essentially boiled down to determination of the single question as mentioned under Serial No. 8(1) of the proforma for filing the application. This was Point 2(ii) of Annexure-A to the application and it involved determination of the question whether the Collector of Central Excise included Addl. Collector also for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act. This had also been specifically brought out in Para 2(vii) of Annexure A of the Collector s Application. Arguing the application further, Shri Senthivel submitted that the Tribunal s decision in its Order No. 1236/85 WRB dated 11-10-1985 rested mainly on two grounds. One was the Notification No. 18/80 GC dated 27-12-1980 as amended and the other was the fact that there was no definition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the orders of the Addl. Collector of Central Excise lay to the Tribunal and not to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). Shri Senthivel further pointed out that under this order the Tribunal had discussed the rank of Addl. District Judge vis-a-vis the District Judge vide Para 70 of the order and the ratio of this decision will apply to the present case. Shri Senthivel further argued that the decisions of the Supreme Court in AIR 1965 S.C. 1619 and AIR 1969 S.C. 483 mentioned on page 11 of the Tribunal s order dated 11-10-1985 would not apply as these judgments were examined by the Larger Bench and not found relevant vide Paras 84 and 85 of the Order dated 1-7-1985. Shri Senthivel submitted that after the issue of the Notification dated 6-6-1984 deleting the entries at Serial No. 3 of the table in Notification No. 18/80 GC dated 27-12-1980, there was no justification to treat the Addl. Collector of Central Excise or Customs as lower in rank than the Collector and therefore the appeal against the Addl. Collector s order in a Gold Control matter will lie to the Tribunal. In this view he submitted that this point arose out of the Tribunal s decision dated 11-10-1985 and shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Collector (Appeals) which was not warranted on the basis relied upon by him. Shri Mehta contended that the correct interpretation of the amendment brought out by Notification dated 6-6-1984 was to take away the powers of adjudication from the Addl. Collector of Central Excise. Shri Mehta further submitted that the Deputy Collector of Central Excise had been designated as Addl. Collector of Central Excise by a simple administrative arrangement contained in the Ministry s letter dated 7-8-1981 referred to by the Larger Bench in its decision dated 1-7-1983. As opposed to this, the West Regional Bench had held in Smt. Ashibai C. Oswal s case that the Appellate authority against the Addl. Collector s order was the Collector (Appeals) vide 1984 (16) E.L.T. 382. In addition, the North Regional Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Kumar reported in ETR 1984 (4) November 1984 Page 694 had held the same view. There were similar decisions reported in ECR January 1983 Page 749 D dated 3-3-1983 in the case of Kanti Prasad Sons and in the case of Sunit Kumar Ghosh ETR 1984 (3) January 1984 Page 49. The Tribunal s decision mentioned in the case of Ramesh Kumar ETR 1984 cited an earli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s prayed by the Collector. 4. In reply, the Learned S.D.R. contended that through the amended Notification dated 6-6-1984, the Government did not confer jurisdiction or take away the jurisdiction of any authority under the Gold (Control) Act. Shri Senthivel further explained that this was because of the respective definitions of Collector under the Customs Act and the Central Excises Salt Act. The Collector included Addl. Collector also. For the purposes of Section 80 of the Gold (Control) Act, the Tribunal in the earlier decision had held that the Addl. Collector was lower in rank than the Collector and hence an appeal against the Addl. Collector s order would lie to the Collector under Section 80. Section 81 provided for appeals against the Collector s order. However, no need had been felt to define the Collector for this purpose. The Collector s definition in the parent Act would hold good for this purpose. Referring to the Larger Bench s decision dated 1-7-1983, Shri Senthivel submitted that the Court could not provide any meaning in case of any lacuna in law as per the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 519. He further submitted that in the other Notification. i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -6-1984. In a way, he has sought to contend that the Notification in question was issued for defining the adjudication powers of the officers and it could not determine the rank of the officers exercising these powers. It was further argued on behalf of the Collector that the definition of Collector under the Central Excise Rules should also be acceptable in determining the rank of the Addl. Collector for exercising the powers of adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act as there was no definition of Collector or other officers in the Gold (Control) Act. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the Respondent has contended that the effect of the amendment dated 6-6-1984 is to take away the powers of adjudication from the Addl. Collector. This is a repetition of his earlier contention which was negatived by us in deciding the appeal. Similarly, the advocate s submission that the amendment dated 6-6-1984 ousts the jurisdiction of Collector (Appeals) and substitutes it with that of the Tribunal is also not acceptable as these matters are governed by Sections 80 and 81 of the Gold (Control) Act. 7. However, we are satisfied that though the Collector s application does not frame th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
