9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (4) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod they were classifiable under Tariff Head 6807.90 instead of 6807.20 as classified by them. Subsequently, the show-cause notices dated 4-11-1999 and 20-11-2000 were also issued to them. 2. After adjudication the matter went to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held in favour of the Appellants that the extended period of limitation was not available. The Department has not come in appeal against that finding. Therefore, the dispute regarding show-cause notice dated 11-10-1999 no longer survives. 3. The question still remains in respect of the two show-cause notices dated 4-11-1999 and 20-11-2000. The question is whether the product is classifiable under Tariff Head 6807.20 or 6807.90. The two tariff items read as follows :- "Heading No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Tariff Item 6807.90. 5. It was next contended that the notices had been issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise. Reliance was placed upon certain Circulars issued by the Board wherein it has been set out that if there are any allegations of fraud, collusion, willful misstatement or suppression of fact etc. then show-cause notices should be issued and adjudicated by a Commissioner without limitation and by an Additional Commissioner up to a limit of Rs. 10 lacs. It was submitted that the show-cause notices issued by the Superintendent are without jurisdiction. In this behalf reliance was placed upon the judgments of this Court in the case Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Alcobex Metals reported in 2003 (4) SCC 630 and Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. However, these directions can only be for the purpose of uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or with respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods. It is thus clear that the Board has no power to issue instructions or orders contrary to the provisions of the Act or in derogation of the provisions of the Act. The Board can only issue such directions as is necessary for the purpose of and in furtherance of the provisions of the Act. The instructions issued by the Board have to be within the four corners of the Act. If, therefore, the Act vests in the Central Excise Officers jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and to adjudicate, the Board has no power to cut down that jurisdiction. However, for the purposes of bette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It was, however, submitted that this judgment requires reconsideration as the provisions of Section 33 and Section 37(2)(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been noted. Section 33 merely deals with Power of Adjudication in cases of Confiscations and Penalties. It provides that where anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged without limit by a Commissioner and in case of confiscation not exceeding Rs. 500/- and imposition of penalty not exceeding Rupees 250/- by an Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The proviso provides that the Central Board of Excise and Customs may, in the case of any officer performing the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
