TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (11) TMI 192
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ive Officers of the Central Excise unit searched the premises of the appellant and found the appellant in possession of 1193 grams of new gold ornaments and 61 grams of primary gold. Since the appellant had not entered the ornaments in the statutory pawn broking register and since the authorities had reason to believe that the ornaments were kept for purposes of sale, the authorities effected seizure of the ornaments and gold under mahazar as per law. The appellant also gave a statement before the authorities on 21-4-1982 in which he had stated inter alia that the gold and ornaments were purchased by him for purposes of sale. It is in these circumstances after further investigations, proceedings were instituted against the appellant which r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding of the original authority in regard to the charge of contravention under Section 6(2) of the Act namely, non-accountal of the ornaments in the pawn broking register and preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority. The lower appellate authority on consideration of the evidence exonerated the appellant even with reference to the charge under Section 6(2). The learned Counsel submitted that when the correctness of exoneration of the appellant in regard to the charge under Section 27(2) was no longer an issue before the lower appellate authority, the lower appellate authority has no jurisdiction to consider it suo motu and more so remit the issue for reconsideration. In regard to the charge under Section 8(1) the appellant ple....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjudicating authority that issue was no longer pending for consideration at all in the appeal preferred by the appellant against the other findings of the adjudicating authority in regard to contravention under Section 6(2). Therefore, the correctness or otherwise of the order of the original authority in exonerating the appellant in respect of the charge under Section 27(1) was not an issue at all before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and therefore, the lower appellate authority does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the same. It should be remembered in this context that it is the appellant who went as an aggrieved person before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) questioning the correctness of the findings of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s no longer an issue at all before the lower appellate authority for consideration. The plea of the learned S.D.R. that the powers of the lower appellate authority are very wide and comprehensive enough to modify, annul or remand the issue is not acceptable in the peculiar context of this particular case. If an issue is pending before the lower appellate authority, it is certainly open to him either to pass an order modifying or annulling or remanding the same but unfortunately when the issue itself was not pending before him, the lower appellate authority cannot pass any order of remand in regard to the same. Therefore, the impugned order remanding the issue in regard to the charge under Section 27(1) for reconsideration by the original au....