ALUMINIUM INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. COLLECTOR OF C EX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 29-1-1988 holding that the impugned order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum, dated 28-7-1987 before him was without jurisdiction.

(2.) The appellant is a manufacturer of electric wires and cables and the items are classifiable under sub-headings 7612.00 and 8544.00. The appellant filed a declaration on 6-3-1986 before the authorities for availing of MODVAT credit as provided under Rule 57 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as 'Rules', in respect of the inputs procured and used in the manufacture of appellant's final product. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Kundara, on scrutiny of the records in regard to the credits availed of by the appellant in respect of duty paid inputs such as PVC contained in P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound, Stranded steel core and PVC Compound (Master Batch), found certain irregularities and passed an order dated 24-1-1987 under Rule 57-I of the Rules directing the appellant to reverse a sum of Rs. 10,18,640.12 on the ground that wrong credit had been taken in regard to the same holding the credit was inadmissible. The appellant questioned the propriety of the said order of the Superintendent before the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trivandrum who on hearing the representation of the appellant, by order dated 28-7-1987 upheld the earlier order of the Superintendent referred to supra in part and directed the appellant to debit and reverse a sum of Rs. 4,44,974.20 in their R.G. 23A Pt. II in addition to a sum of Rs. 93,398.70 which the appellant had already reversed. In other words, the Assistant Collector by his order referred to above modified the order of the Superintendent of Central Excise and restricted the quantum of wrong credit taken by the appellant to the figures mentioned above. Aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Collector, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, who disposed of the same under the impugned order dated 29-1-1988 in which the Collector (Appeals) held that the order of the Assistant Collector modifying the earlier order of the Superintendent of Central Excise is totally without jurisdiction and is not legally valid. The Collector (Appeals) further held in the impugned order that the earlier order of the Superintendent admittedly not having been appealed against and having been allowed to become final would hold good. The present appeal is against the said order of the Collector (Appeals).

(3.) SHRI K.K. Bhatia, the learned S.D.R., submitted that the power exercised by the Superintendent of Central Excise in directing the appellant to reverse the credit under Rule 57-1 of the Rules is in exercise of quasi-judicial power and therefore, the order of the Superintendent is an order of adjudication appealable under the Act. Admittedly, the order of the Superintendent not having been appealed against and having been allowed to become final cannot be challenged before any authority at this distance of time. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise notwithstanding his being an administrative superior to the Superintendent of Central Excise does not have jurisdiction to sit in appeal as an appellate authority over an order of adjudication passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise in exercise of quasi-judicial power. The learned S.D.R. further urged that the Collector (Appeals) under the impugned order has very correctly highlighted this legal position and held that the impugned order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise is totally without jurisdiction and, therefore, the original order passed by the Superintendent is valid.