2002 (4) TMI 497 - AT - Central Excise

Collector's Lack of Jurisdiction Invalidates Customs Act Proceedings, Tribunal Sets Aside Order

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus ARS METALS (P) LTD.

The Tribunal found that the Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The Collector ... Reference to High Court Issues:Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise in initiating proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act.Detailed Analysis:Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise:The case involved a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise (Judicial) in initiating proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act. The appellant had filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise confirming a demand for duty and confiscation of goods. The appellants had imported steel scrap under a notification and executed bonds with the Commissioner of Customs. However, Central Excise officers seized the goods, leading to proceedings initiated by the Collector of Central Excise. The appellants argued that the goods satisfied the declaration and were not liable for seizure or short-duty levy. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the Collector of Central Excise did not have jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Proper Officer under the Customs Act had examined the goods and ordered clearance after execution of the bond. The Collector of Central Excise proceeded with the case without referring it to the Collector of Customs, to whom the bond was executed. The Tribunal held that the Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction in initiating and adjudicating the proceedings under Section 28 of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order.High Court Direction and Reference:The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature of Madras directed the Tribunal to draw a statement of facts and refer the question of law raised by them for consideration. The question posed by the High Court was whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Collector of Central Excise was not a Customs Officer at the time of making the order under appeal. The Tribunal, in compliance with the High Court's direction, prepared the statement of facts and relevant materials for submission to the High Court. The Registry was instructed to send four sets of the statement to the Registrar of the High Court for further proceedings.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issue of jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise in initiating proceedings under the Customs Act, highlighting the importance of proper authority and adherence to procedural requirements. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order was based on the lack of jurisdiction by the Collector of Central Excise, leading to the appeal's success. The case also involved compliance with the High Court's directive for reference and submission of relevant materials for further consideration.