TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Detention Orders Jurisdiction</h1> <h3>NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA</h3> NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., LUDHIANA - 2008 (222) E.L.T. 149 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Jurisdiction of Commissioner(Appeals) to interfere in the matter, issuance of detention order without show cause notice (SCN) for interest, violation of principles of natural justice, mandatory requirement of SCN before confirming interest, charging of interest under Section 11AB, appealability of detention orders under Rule 230, correctness of order-in-appeal, adequacy of decision by Commissioner(Appeals).Jurisdiction of Commissioner(Appeals):The appellants, a public-sector undertaking, challenged the order of Commissioner(Appeals) stating he had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) concluded that he lacked jurisdiction. The appeal memo highlighted the objection of the Department in terms of Chapter X procedure of Central Excise Rules, 1944, emphasizing that duty was paid before the order-in-original, hence no interest was due. The Ld. Counsel contended that quasi-judicial authorities have the power to review actions taken by lower authorities, citing relevant case laws to support the appeal.Issuance of Detention Order without SCN for Interest:The Ld. Counsel argued that the Department's failure to issue an SCN before confirming interest was a violation of principles of natural justice. He referenced a Tribunal's order and a High Court judgment to support the contention that interest cannot be confirmed without a proper SCN. The Ld. Departmental Representative admitted that the order was issued for interest recovery but disputed the date of determination, which was opposed by the Ld. Counsel. The Board Circular clarified the mandatory provision of charging interest under Section 11AB even if not mentioned in the adjudication order.Appealability of Detention Orders and Correctness of Order-in-Appeal:The Tribunal analyzed the appealability of detention orders under Rule 230 and Section 11A of the Act, emphasizing the differences between the two provisions. Referring to relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner(Appeals) was correct in dismissing the appeal, as the detention order under Section 11 was not appealable. The decision was supported by the Tribunal's order and a High Court judgment, highlighting the distinct nature of Section 11A compared to Rule 230. The appeal was dismissed based on the reasoning provided.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner(Appeals) regarding jurisdiction and appealability of detention orders, dismissing the appeal. The arguments regarding the issuance of SCN for interest, violation of natural justice, and the charging of interest under Section 11AB were thoroughly analyzed. The Tribunal's detailed analysis of relevant case laws and legal provisions provided a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
