TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent their arguments on the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to hear the appeal. Shri J. Bannerjee, learned counsel for M/s. Upper Ganges Sugar Mills, Chandausi submitted at some stage in the proceedings that the Tribunal was not competent to hear an appeal against the order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under the Produce Cess Act. At a later stage of the hearing, he agreed with the submission of Shri Sundar Rajan, the learned Departmental Representative, that the Tribunal was competent to hear the appeal. Shri Sundar Rajan relied on the decision reported in AIR 1983 Delhi 402 in support of his contention that the Produce Cess Act must be deemed to have been repealed by implication to the extent that the Tribunal was empowered to hear appeals against the orders passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise and to dispose of transferred Revision Applications as appeals. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The Produce Cess Act, 1966 (Act No. 15 of 1966) provides for the imposition of Cess on certain produce for the improvement and developments of the methods of cultivation and marketing of produce and for matters connected therewith ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been appointed as an Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of appeals against orders passed by officers of Central Excise lower in rank than a Collector of Central Excise. The decisions or orders against which such appeals lie should be ones passed under the Central Excises and Salt Act or the rules made thereunder. It is clear that an order-in-appeal passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise under Section 10(1) of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 is not an order passed by him under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act as it stood prior to the 11th October, 1982. 7. The Departmental Representative has laid much emphasis on Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act which reads as follows :- The provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, shall so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of duties of excise on any produce specified in the Second Schedule, as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of duty payable to the Central Government under that Act. He, therefore, contends that the amended provisions of the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the Tribunal to hear appeals, nor did it take away the revisionary power of the Central Government to hear appeals against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the First appellate authority, as in the present case, under the Produce Cess Act. The provisions of Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act (extracted earlier) clearly provide that the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act and the rules made thereunder shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of Produce Cess as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of duty payable to the Central Government under the Central Excises and Salt Act (emphasis supplied). The words so far as may be are significant in our view. The words mean that if there is any provision in the Produce Cess Act which conflicts with the provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act, the former provision shall prevail. Applying this test, the revisionary authority continues to be the Central Government since sub-section (4) of Section 10 has not been deleted and so long as this sub-section continues in the Produce Cess Act, and jurisdiction has not been conferred on the Tribunal, the Tribunal is not competent to hear revi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellants had contravened the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 and he imposed a penalty of ₹ 250/- and also confirmed the demand of the Oil Cess due on 36254 quintals of oil at the appropriate rate. The Appellate Collect or before whom the appeal was preferred by the appellants against the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, confirmed the order of the Assistant Collector and rejected the appeal filed by the appellants. 14. Aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Collector, the appellants filed a revision application before the Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, which was transferred to this Tribunal and is treated as an appeal. 15. After hearing Shri J. Bannerjee, Advocate for the appellants and Shri A.S. Sundar Rajan, J.D R. for the department and going through the record, the matter was adjourned for announcement of orders but before the orders could be announced, a point cropped up whether this Tribunal is the proper forum for the disposal of this matter or the revisional authority in the Central Government is to hear the revision itself and hence the notice was issued to the parties to advance argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-1968, the Government appointed the Collector Central Excise as the Collector under the Act vide notification dated 26-3-1969 and it is the Collector, Central Excise who has to act as an authority under the Act. Section 15(2) of the Produce Cess Act reads as under :- The provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), and the rules made thereunder, including those relating to refunds and exemptions from duty, shall so far as may be, apply in relation to the levy and collection of duties of excise on any produce specified in the Second Schedule as they apply in relation to the levy and collection of duty payable to the Central Government under that Act. A perusal of the provisions contained in this sub-section shows that for all intents and purposes, the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the rules made thereunder are to be applied in the cases under the Produce Cess Act, 1966. The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 was amended by the Finance Act, 1980 and as per amended provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, such appeals against the orders of the Collector (Appeals) are to be heard by the Tribunal. Therefore, as p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Cess Act, 1966 and ultimately a show cause notice dated 25-4-1973 was served upon them and despite that they did not comply with the provisions of the said Act. They are liable to pay the cess duty as well as the penalty as adjudged by the authorities below and that the claim is within time. According to him, Rule 9, which was having no time of limitation at the relevant time, is applicable in this case. The provisions of Rule 10 as alleged by the learned counsel of the appellants cannot be made applicable in this case. 22. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants produce the oil from the ground nuts crushed by them. The learned counsel of the appellants has also not been able to satisfy us as to show the ground nut seeds are not the oil seeds. At the time of arguments he rather conceded that the ground nut seeds are the oil seeds but according to him the appellants did not submit any return required to be submitted by crushers of oil seeds and producers of oil therefrom as required under the provisions of the Produce Cess Act, 1966 because they were given to understand at that time that ground nut was not an oil seed. Ignorance of law is not an excuse and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this behalf, whether for consumption, export or manufacture of any other commodity in or outside such place until the excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner as is prescribed under these rules or as the Collector may require and accept on presentation of an application in the proper form and on obtaining the permission of proper officer on the form. 25. If the provisions of this Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 are violated, the provisions of Rule 9(2) come into operation immediately which lay down that if any excisable goods are, in contravention of sub-rule (1), deposited in or removed from, any place specified therein, the producer or manufacturer thereof, shall pay the duty leviable on such goods upon written demand made by the proper officer whether such demand is delivered personally to him or is left at his dwelling house and shall also be liable to a penalty which may extend to ₹ 2,000/- and such goods shall be liable to confiscation. 29. No time-limit was prescribed under Rule 9 at the relevant time. As the appellants violated the provisions of Rule 9(1), so under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
