2013 (10) TMI 448 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules on jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) in recovery proceedings under Central Excise Act

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the ... Jurisdiction of the Commissioner (Appeals) – Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the attachment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in terms of the Settlement Commission's final order dated 26/07/2011. - Held that:- Following National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana [2007 (9) TMI 128 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI ] and CC, Mumbai vs. Dujodwala Industries [2003 (1) TMI 147 - CEGAT, MUMBAI ] - the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have jurisdiction in respect of orders passed by the competent authority under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or under 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals) - the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is without jurisdiction and hence bad in law – order set aside – Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues: Jurisdiction of Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai, which set aside an attachment order under section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in accordance with the Settlement Commission's final order. The Ld. Additional Commissioner argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as per precedents like National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. CCE, Ludhiana and CC, Mumbai vs. Dujodwala Industries. The Ld. AR prayed for setting aside the lower appellate authority's order based on the lack of jurisdiction. No representation was made by the Respondent in this matter.The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by the Ld. AR and reviewed the relevant case law. It was established that recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are not appealable before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was deemed to be without jurisdiction and legally flawed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the lower appellate authority and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The decision was made based on the well-settled principle that the Commissioner (Appeals) does not have jurisdiction over matters related to Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, leading to the dismissal of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order.This judgment underscores the importance of understanding the jurisdictional boundaries of appellate authorities under specific provisions of the law. It clarifies that certain matters, such as recovery proceedings under Section 11 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, fall outside the purview of the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the need for adherence to legal precedents and established principles in determining the validity of appellate decisions.