1990 (12) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Invalidity of Adjudication Order under Gold (Control) Act post 6-6-1984

The court found that the Additional Collector of Central Excise lacked jurisdiction to issue the adjudication order under the Gold (Control) Act post ... Adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act - Jurisdiction of Gold Control Officer - Notification under Section 78(b) - Definition of 'Collector' in Central Excise Rules - Prohibition on importing definitions from non pari materia ActsJurisdiction of Gold Control Officer - Notification under Section 78(b) - Definition of 'Collector' in Central Excise Rules - Adjudication under the Gold (Control) Act - The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, who passed the adjudication order on 19-1-1985, did not have jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act and the adjudication order is invalid. - HELD THAT: - Section 78 of the Gold (Control) Act vests unlimited adjudicatory power in a Collector of Central Excise or Customs but requires express notification by the Central Government under Section 78(b) to confer adjudicatory powers on other Gold Control Officers. The Additional Collector of Central Excise was included by Notification dated 1-8-1981 as authorised under Section 78(b) but was omitted by the notification dated 6-6-1984, with the consequence that he ceased to be a Gold Control Officer empowered under the Act. The Central Government's authorisation under Section 78(b) is the source of any power exercisable by officers other than a Collector; therefore any attempt to derive jurisdiction from the definition of 'Collector' in the Central Excise Rules (Rule 2(ii)) is impermissible. That definition applies for purposes of the Central Excise statute and excisable goods and cannot be read into the Gold (Control) Act, which is not pari materia; the Court rejected the Department's contention that an Additional Collector exercising powers under the Central Excise Act should be treated as a Collector for purposes of the Gold (Control) Act. Applying these principles to the notifications, the Additional Collector of Central Excise had no authority under the Gold (Control) Act at the time he passed the adjudication order on 19-1-1985, and the order is therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. [Paras 28, 29, 36, 37, 38]Adjudication order dated 19-1-1985 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, quashed as having been made without jurisdiction.Final Conclusion: Writ petitions allowed; the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985 is quashed for want of jurisdiction and the primary gold seized shall be returned to the first petitioner within eight weeks; endorsement by the Collector (Appeals) need not be considered. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Validity of the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985.3. Endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Additional Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968:The petitioners contended that the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise was without jurisdiction. The argument centered on Section 78 of the Gold (Control) Act, which specifies the officers authorized to adjudicate under the Act. Section 78(a) empowers a Collector of Central Excise or Customs with unlimited adjudication powers. Section 78(b) allows the Central Government to authorize other Gold Control Officers, not below the rank of Superintendent of Central Excise, through a notification.The court examined the relevant notifications:- Notification dated 27-12-1980 authorized the Additional Collector of Customs to exercise adjudication powers.- Notification No. 3/81 dated 1-8-1981 included the Additional Collector of Central Excise.- Notification dated 6-6-1984 omitted both the Additional Collector of Customs and the Additional Collector of Central Excise from the list of authorized officers.The court concluded that post 6-6-1984, the Additional Collector of Central Excise no longer had the authority to exercise adjudication powers under the Gold (Control) Act. The argument that the definition of 'Collector' in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, which includes an Additional Collector, should apply to the Gold (Control) Act was rejected. The court emphasized that powers under the Gold (Control) Act must be explicitly conferred by a notification under Section 78(b).2. Validity of the Adjudication Order dated 19-1-1985:Given the lack of jurisdiction, the court found the adjudication order dated 19-1-1985 (Annexure A) to be invalid. The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was not authorized to pass the order as he ceased to be a Gold Control Officer post 6-6-1984. The court quashed the order on the grounds of it being passed without jurisdiction.3. Endorsement Issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras:The petitioners also sought to quash the endorsement issued by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, dated 13-3-1985 (Annexure G-1), which declined to entertain their appeal. However, since the adjudication order itself was quashed, the court deemed it unnecessary to address this issue further.Conclusion:The writ petitions were allowed, and the adjudication order passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Belgaum, was quashed. The court ordered the return of the primary gold weighing 1416 grams to the first petitioner within eight weeks. The endorsement by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, was not considered further due to the quashing of the adjudication order.