2013 (12) TMI 1452 - HC - Central Excise

Court affirms jurisdiction for Show Cause Notices, orders timely adjudication, interpreting implicit remand.

USHA THERMOSETS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Court upheld that the Show Cause Notices survived for adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise, as the CESTAT's order did not quash them but ... Validity of order passed by the Tribunal - Held that:- It appears that while disposing of the appeal preferred by the appellant against the OIO [2000 (11) TMI 553 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] as such the learned Appellate Tribunal did not quash and set aside the OIO passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, disposed of the said appeal by observing that “the matter could be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority”. That with the aforesaid observations the appeal came to be disposed of. Considering the above, it cannot be said that there was no specific order of remand for de novo adjudication. The aforesaid observation suggests that the Appellate Tribunal was of the opinion that the matter is to be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority - no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Appellate Tribunal [majority decision]. No error has been committed by the learned Appellate Tribunal which calls for interference of this Court. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. - Decided against assesee. Issues Involved:1. Whether the Show Cause Notices issued to the appellant survive for being decided and adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Central Excise or any other Central Excise Officer having monetary competence after the appellant's Appeal No. E/4576/83-C was decided by the CESTAT, New Delhi, vide order dated 15-11-2000.2. Whether the final order No. 513/2000-C, dated 15-11-2000, in Appeal No. E/4576/83-C, remanded the case back for being adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority or there was no remand of the case while deciding the said appeal.3. Whether the majority decision in appeal No. E/1277/2005 that the Commissioner of Central Excise had jurisdiction to decide the Show Cause Notices issued to the appellant in this case is correct and sustainable in facts of this case.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Survival of Show Cause Notices for AdjudicationThe appellant contended that the Show Cause Notices should not survive for adjudication after the CESTAT's order dated 15-11-2000, as there was no specific direction for remand or de novo adjudication. The Tribunal had set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of lack of monetary competence, without explicitly remanding the case back for fresh adjudication. The appellant argued that in the absence of a specific remand order, the Commissioner of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices.Issue 2: Remand of the Case by CESTAT OrderThe appellant argued that the CESTAT's order dated 15-11-2000 did not explicitly remand the case for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal had quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner due to the monetary limit prescribed by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which restricted the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to adjudicate demands exceeding Rs. 50,000. The appellant maintained that without a specific remand order, the Commissioner could not proceed with adjudication.Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central ExciseThe Tribunal, in its majority decision, held that the Commissioner of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices. The Tribunal observed that the CESTAT's order implied that the matter should be adjudicated by the competent authority, which in this case was the Commissioner. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had repeatedly delayed the adjudication process and that the competent authority should be allowed to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices on merits.Court's Findings:On Issue 1:The Court noted that the appellant had a history of delaying the adjudication process. The Court observed that the CESTAT's order dated 15-11-2000 indicated that the matter should be adjudicated by the competent authority. The Court held that the Show Cause Notices survived for adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise, as the CESTAT had not quashed them on merits but had set aside the orders due to the Assistant Commissioner's lack of jurisdiction.On Issue 2:The Court found that the CESTAT's order, while not explicitly stating a remand, implied that the matter should be adjudicated by the competent authority. The Court interpreted the CESTAT's direction that 'the matter could be adjudicated by the competent adjudicating authority' as an implicit remand for fresh adjudication by the Commissioner of Central Excise.On Issue 3:The Court upheld the Tribunal's majority decision, affirming that the Commissioner of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices. The Court rejected the appellant's reliance on the Rajputana Steel Casting P. Ltd. case, noting that the facts of the present case were different as the CESTAT had impliedly directed adjudication by the competent authority.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the appeal, directing the adjudicating authority to adjudicate the Show Cause Notices and pass final orders within three months. The Court found no substantial question of law warranting interference and emphasized the need for timely adjudication of the Show Cause Notices, which had been pending since 1991.