TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d not by the GOs [office orders]. The 2001 Notification was published in official gazette. There is no illegality in the same. Shri Pradeep Kumar and Shri Pramod Kumar were merely promoted by the GOs [office orders]. There was no necessity to publish the GOs in the official gazette. They had jurisdiction to issue notice - Decided against the assessee. - W.P. (T) Nos. 111-112 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2012 - Yatindra Singh and Radhe Shyam Sharma, JJ. Shri Kartik Kurmy and S.B. Sharma, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri Vivek Shrivastava and Manish Sharma, Advocates, for the Respondent. ORDER The main question involved in these writ petitions relates to legality of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 [Rule 3(2)] of the Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vernment to made rules. The 2002 Rules have been framed under this section. 6. Rule 3 of the 2002 Rules is titled as Appointment and jurisdiction of Central Excise Officers . Rule 3(2) of the Rules 2002 empowers the Central Board of Excise and Customs (the Board) to specify the jurisdiction of, apart from the other officers, the commissioners. 7. Under Rule 3(2) of the 2002 Rules, the Board published a notification dated 13-11-2001 (the 2001 Notification) in the official gazette specifying the territorial jurisdiction of different commissioners. The Commissioner, Raipur was entrusted with the jurisdiction over the entire State of Chhattisgarh. 8. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance has issued two office orders dated 28-1-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioners may be authorised to issue written instructions for supplemental matters arising out of any rule made by the Central Government under Section 37 of the Act. 12. Nevertheless, different sub-sections of Section 37 of the Act do not restrict the power conferred upon the Central Government to make rules under Section 37(1) of the Act. This is also clear from the opening words of Section 37(2) itself. 13. Section 37(2) of the Act states that, the rules may be made in respect of subjects mentioned under different clauses of the Section 37(2). This power is without generality of the power conferred on the Central Government under Section 37(1) of the Act. This is to say that power conferred u/s 37(1) of the Act is not effected. 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37(2)(ib) and 37(2)(xx) do not prohibit framing of such rules; Rule 3(2) of the 2002 Rules is not illegal. 2ND POINT: NOTICES ARE VALID 19. Rule 3(2) of the 2002 Rules mandates that jurisdiction of different officers including that of Commissioners should be specified by a notification. The word notification has also been defined in Rule 2(f) of the 2002 Rules. It means notification in the official gazette. However, it nowhere mandates that promotion orders should be by a notification. 20. The Commissioner, Raipur was conferred jurisdiction over State of Chhattisgarh by the 2001 Notification. It was admittedly published in the official gazette. By the GOs, the Officers were not conferred jurisdiction over State of Chhattisga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or may not get it done; The Special audit could be done before issuing the notice or even when the proceedings are going on before the Commissioner. 26. It is not necessary for us to deal with the point. The writ petitions are merely against the show cause notices. It is always open to the Petitioner to raise this objection in its reply and in case it is taken, it may be decided in accordance with law. CONCLUSIONS 27. Our conclusions are as follows : (a) Rule 3(2) of the Rules 2002 is valid; (b) The Commissioner, Raipur was given jurisdiction over State of Chhattisgarh by the 2001 Notification and not by the GOs. The 2001 Notification was published in official gazette. There is no illegality in the same; (c) Shri Pradeep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
