COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by he Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, Karnataka, against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras dated 5-8-1987. The short question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the reasoning of the lower appellate authority under the impugned order that the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Davengere Division dated 18-3-1987 is without jurisdiction is correct under law or the Assistant Collector of Central Excise namely, the original authority is competent to pass the order in question. It is not necessary for us, having regard to the scope of the appeal, to go into the factual ramification. We would, therefore, refer to certain brief facts for purpose of considering the legal question. In this case, according to the Department a show cause notice was issued to the respondent invoking the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 on 4-1-1985 and the show cause notice culminated in an order of adjudication at the hands of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise on 26-3-1985. The respondent herein preferred an appeal against the same before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras who by his order dated 23-1-1986, set aside the order of the original authority and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The lower appellate authority in the order remand has observed as under:-

(2.) Shri Bhatia, the learned S.D.R. appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that notwithstanding the amendment to Section 11A of the Act with effect from 27-12-1985 conferring the jurisdiction exclusively on the Collector of Central Excise to adjudicate matters where the longer period of limitation is invoked that would not affect pending proceedings and, therefore, the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. The learned S.D.R. also submitted that the opinion of the Law Ministry dated 17/18-3-1986 pursuant to a clarification sought by the Central Board of Excise and Customs would also support his view.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions urged before us. Even assuming for the purpose of argument that the proceedings were pending before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, having regard to the admitted fact that the longer period of limitation was invoked against the respondent, it is only the Collector of Central Excise who would be competent to sit in an adjudication by virtue of the amendment to Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with effect from 27-12-1985. The reasoning of the lower appellate authority in this regard in the impugned order extracted above is unassailable and cannot be taken exception to. WE are also fortified in this view of ours by the general instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs in their F. No. 6/57/88-CX.1, dated 4-1-1989 (Circular No. 1/89). For purpose of convenience, we would like to extract the instructions of the Central Board of Excise and Customs below: