1984 (10) TMI 216 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal dismisses appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, upholds penalty for non-compliance.

UPPER GANGES SUGAR MILLS LTD., CHANDAUSI Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, ALLAHABAD

The Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and directed the records to be sent back to the Central Government for review. ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the appeal.2. Compliance with the Produce Cess Act, 1966.3. Validity of the penalty and cess demand.4. Time-barred claim under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to Hear the Appeal:The Tribunal examined whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the appeal transferred from the Central Government. The Produce Cess Act, 1966, provides for the imposition of cess on certain produce for the improvement and development of cultivation and marketing methods. Section 10(1) of the Act allows for appeals against assessments to an appellate authority appointed by the Central Government. The Tribunal noted that the Finance (2) Act, 1980, amended the Customs Act, the Central Excises and Salt Act, and the Gold (Control) Act to establish the Appellate Tribunal and confer jurisdiction to hear appeals. However, no similar amendments were made to the Produce Cess Act. The Tribunal concluded that the revisionary authority remains the Central Government, as sub-section (4) of Section 10 of the Produce Cess Act was not deleted, and jurisdiction was not conferred on the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal directed that the records be retransmitted to the revision authority in the Central Government for disposal in accordance with the law.2. Compliance with the Produce Cess Act, 1966:The appellants, Upper Ganges Sugar Mills Limited, were required to supply particulars to the Central Excise Department and submit monthly returns under Sections 7 and 8 of the Produce Cess Act, 1966. The appellants failed to comply, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent demand for oil cess on 36,254 quintals of oil. The appellants argued that they did not comply because they believed ground nut was not an oil seed, based on decisions from the Madhya Pradesh and Punjab High Courts. However, the Tribunal emphasized that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the appellants were bound to comply with the provisions of the Produce Cess Act.3. Validity of the Penalty and Cess Demand:The Assistant Collector of Central Excise imposed a penalty of Rs. 250 and confirmed the demand for oil cess. The appellants argued that the duty demanded was time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the goods were removed without the knowledge of the excise authorities and without payment of duty. The Tribunal found that Rule 9, which had no time limitation at the relevant time, was applicable. The Tribunal upheld the penalty and cess demand, noting that the appellants violated Rule 9(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.4. Time-barred Claim under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:The appellants contended that the demand was time-barred under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the case was covered by Rule 9, which had no time limit at the relevant time. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants removed the goods without the knowledge and consent of the excise authorities, making Rule 9(2) applicable. The Tribunal distinguished this case from others cited by the appellants, where goods were removed with the knowledge of the excise authorities.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and directed the records to be retransmitted to the revision authority in the Central Government. On the merits, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, upheld the penalty and cess demand, and dismissed the appeal.