2008 (4) TMI 666 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Overturns Orders on Jurisdiction Issue

DYNACON EQUIPMENT (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHENNAI

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appeal. The ... Demand - Jurisdiction - Product having emerged in premises of customer at Kanjikode (Kerala), demand of duty not to be raised by Superintendent of Central Excise, - Set aside for want of jurisdiction - Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Issues:Jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner to demand duty on contracted product at customer's premises.Pecuniary jurisdiction of Assistant Commissioner in cases involving duty exceeding Rs. 2.00 lakhs.Analysis:1. The appeal challenges an order confirming duty demand on bought-out items and differential duty on items supplied under a contract. The appellate authority allowed MODVAT credit but upheld the demands partially. The contract involved supply of equipments and materials for copra handling system and oil mill modification. The show-cause notice demanded differential duty on the contracted product value related to bought-out items and interest not included in assessable value. It also alleged duty evasion on machinery cleared in knocked-down condition.2. The main objection raised in the appeal questions the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to demand duty on the product at the customer's premises. The appellant argues that the orders are unsustainable due to lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to handle cases exceeding Rs. 2.00 lakhs. The Tribunal heard arguments from both parties, considering the jurisdictional issues raised.3. The demand of duty pertains to the contracted product, with various grounds for the demand including assessable value discrepancies, interest considerations, and the CKD concept. The entire duty demand is based on the product contracted between the assessee and the customer. As the product emerged at the customer's premises, the Superintendent and Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to raise or adjudicate on the duty demand. Consequently, the lower appellate authority also had no jurisdiction over the dispute. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) due to lack of jurisdiction, allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of jurisdiction concerning duty demands on contracted products and the pecuniary limits of the Assistant Commissioner, ultimately leading to the appeal's success based on jurisdictional grounds.