TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above proceedings before the Commissioner were initiated pursuant to a show cause notice dated 29-12-2000 issued by the Additional Director Generation of DRI. 3.The contention of the appellant which is relevant for the issue before us is that the Additional Director General of DRI has no jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Relevant portion of Section 28 reads as follows :- 28.Notice for payment of duties, interest etc. - When any duty has not been levied or has been short-levied or(1) erroneously refunded, or when any interest payable has not been paid, part paid or erroneously refunded, the proper officer may, - (a) in the case of any import made by any individual for his personal use or by Government, or by any educational, research or charitable institution or hospital, within one year; (b) in any other case, within six months, from the relevant date, serve notice on the person chargeable with the duty or interest which has not been levied or charged or which has been so short-levied or part paid or to whom the refund has erroneously been made, requiring him to show cause why he should not pay the amount specified in the notice; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des relied on different decisions in support of their contentions. We will now refer to those decisions. The appellant relies on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (1) Commissioner of Customs, Bombay v. Poona Roller - 1997 (89) E.L.T. 604 (Tribunal) (2) Bakeman's Home Products Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Bombay - 1997 (95) E.L.T. 278 (Tribunal) (3) Manohar Bros. (Capacitors) v. CC II, Bombay - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 821 (Tribunal) (4) Dhirendran N. Sheth v. CC, Kandla - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 625 (Tribunal) (5) Association for Dev. Youth India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kandla - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 585 (Tribunal) (6) Pushpit Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Kochi - 2001 (130) E.L.T. 520 (Tribunal) (7) CC, Mumbai v. Ramesh Nebhnani - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal -Mumbai) (8) CC, Mumbai v. A. Shankar Rao - 2002 (149) E.L.T. 387 (Tribunal -Mumbai) (9) CC, Mumbai v. Mahesh India - 2003 (151) E.L.T. 605 (10) Nath International Corporation v. CC, Mumbai - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 430 (Tribunal - Mumbai) (11) Orient Arts Crafts v. CC (Prev.), Mumbai - 2003 (155) E.L.T. 168 (Tri. - Mumbai) 6.In CC, Bombay v. Poona Roller the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Central Excise, Bombay-III was designated as Collector of Customs under Notification No. 58/92-Cus., dated 31-7-92. He cannot issue a notice in respect of alleged contravention taken outside his jurisdiction. Referring to decision of Karnataka High Court in Devilog Systems India v. CC, Bangalore - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) it was held that he was not a proper officer for the purpose of Section 28. The Tribunal also took the view that to be a proper officer under Section 28(1) the specific assigning of particular function has to be made. Only because the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-III is equated as a Collector of Customs it will not ipso facto make him proper officer under Section 28(1). 7.In Association for Dev. Youth India Pvt. Ltd. show cause notice issued by Assistant Director, DRI was held without jurisdiction relying on CC, Bombay v. Poona Roller. So also in Dhirendra N. Sheth ratio of CC v. Poona Roller was applied and show cause notice issued by Assistant Director, DRI was held without jurisdiction. In Pushpit Steels Pvt. Ltd. four Bills of Entry had been filed in the Kochi Custom House for clearance of the imported goods. Thereafter show cause notice was iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated as the proper officer for demanding duty under Section 28. Reliance was placed on CCE, Mumbai v. Poona Roller and Bakemen's Home Products (Pvt.) Ltd. The challenge was upheld. It was also held that once assessment had been started by Commissioner of Customs, there is no jurisdiction for Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) to raise demands. Revenue relies on the following decisions in support of its contention : Durga Prasad v. H.R. Gomes - 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1501 (S.C.) Union of India v. Sigma Electronics - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 26 (Cal.) Porcelain Crafts Components Exim P. Ltd. v. CC - 1998 (102) E.L.T. 11 South India Exports v. Jt. DGFT - 2003 (156) E.L.T. 632 (Mad.) = 2003 (88) ECC 679 (Mad) Devilog Systems India v. CC - 1995 (76) E.L.T. 520 (Kar.) CC v. Padma Nutrients Pvt. Ltd. - 2003 (152) E.L.T. 438 (Tri.) Kandla Clearing Agency P. Ltd. v. CC - 2003 (158) E.L.T. 86 (Tri.) = 2003 (59) RLT 240 (Tri.) Before we proceed to consider the decisions relied on by the Revenue, we may first quote the relevant portion of the Notification 19/90-Cus., dated 26th April, 1990. Appointment of D.R.I. Officials as Customs Officers In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s are released by the Customs authorities and that the officer of the DRI, Revenue Intelligence has the power to detain the goods. In South India Exports contention raised was that Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI is not empowered to issue notice under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The contention was that Section 110 invests power to issue of notice by a gazetted officer of Customs. Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI not being gazetted officer of Customs has no jurisdiction to issue notice. Revenue submitted that Notification No. 97-Cus. (N.T.), dated 7-7-97 clearly refers to appointment of all officers of DRI as officers of Customs. Such notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4(1) of the Customs Act. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI is also a gazetted officer of Customs. And can issue notice under Section 108. The above stand taken by the Revenue was accepted and the appellant's objection was rejected by the Hon'ble High Court. Devilog Systems India has been relied on both by the appellant as well as the Revenue. In the above case the issue that came up for consideration was whether Asstt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here a question arose as to whether certain officers of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise) given the powers of officers of Central Excise can exercise such power throughout the territory of India. It was noted that the Director of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise) invested with all powers of a Collector under the Notification. A Central Excise Officer under Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act means any officer of the Central Excise Department or any person invested by the Central Board of Excise Customs with any of the powers of a Central Excise Officer under the Central Excise Act. Therefore, the powers of the Collector of Central Excise under the Central Excise Act may be exercised by the Director of Anti-Evasion when the Director has been authorised to exercise such power by the Notification. The Central Excise Act does not lay down that a Collector cannot exercise jurisdiction throughout India. There is nothing in the statutory provision which would stand in the way of the Collector being authorised to exercise powers throughout the country. Therefore, the Director of Anti-Evasion can also exercise such power. The ratio of the above decision has been followed sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
