1990 (7) TMI 133 - HC - Central Excise

Tribunal Rules on Jurisdiction Issue; High Court Orders Statement on Rule 180 Power

COLLECTOR OF C. EX. & CUS. Versus INDIAN METAL & FERRO ALLOYS LTD.

The Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ruled in favor of the opposite party, stating that the Collector of Central Excise had no ... Reference to High Court Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.2. Interpretation of Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules regarding the amendment of a license.Analysis:Jurisdiction of Collector of Central Excise:The case involves an application under Section 35-G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Collector of Central Excise. The Collector had deleted 'Charge Chrome' from a license granted to the opposite party due to the absence of an industrial license for producing Charge Chrome. The opposite party appealed to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the opposite party, stating that the Collector had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of violations of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act. The Tribunal concluded that there was no linkage between the two statutes and that the authorities under the Act did not have the power to consider provisions of the Industrial Development Regulation Act. Consequently, the Tribunal declined to refer the questions of law framed by the Collector, as it found them to be improperly mixed up and too obvious.Interpretation of Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules:The Collector filed an application seeking a case to be stated to the High Court on the question of law regarding the exercise of power under Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal initially refused to state a case, citing that the questions were too obvious. However, upon further review, the High Court found that a question of law did arise from the Tribunal's order. The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to frame the real question involved, even if the original question was not properly framed. The High Court highlighted that the interpretation of statutory provisions to give jurisdiction to a statutory authority should be settled by the Supreme Court or the High Court. Therefore, the High Court directed the Tribunal to provide a statement of the case on the question of whether the power under Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules was correctly exercised by the Collector in the circumstances of the case.In conclusion, the judgment delves into the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the interpretation of Rule 180 of the Central Excise Rules regarding the amendment of a license. The High Court emphasized the importance of properly framing questions of law and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine the real questions involved in a case.