"Collector" in Excise Act Includes "Additional Collector" for Direct Appeals to Tribunal.

The court ruled that the term "Collector" in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, includes "Additional Collector" for adjudication purposes under Section 33, as per the inclusive definition in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, amended by Notification No. 110/81-C.E. Consequently, appeals against orders by the Additional Collector should be made directly to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B. The dissenting opinion argued that the Additional Collector is lower in rank and appeals should first go to the Collector (Appeals) before reaching the Appellate Tribunal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise can be deemed a "Collector" for the purposes of Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Interpretation of the definition of "Collector" under Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. The impact of the amendment introduced by Notification No. 110/81-C.E., dated 29-4-1981.
4. The status of statutory rules vis-`a-vis the Act.
5. The implications of administrative hierarchy and functional rank.
6. The right of appeal under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the Additional Collector of Central Excise can be deemed a "Collector" for the purposes of Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The judgment primarily revolves around whether an Additional Collector can be considered a "Collector" for adjudication purposes under Section 33 of the Act. The majority opinion holds that the term "Collector" includes "Additional Collector" by virtue of the inclusive definition in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, as amended by Notification No. 110/81-C.E. The dissenting opinion, however, argues that the Additional Collector is lower in rank and thus should not be equated with the Collector for the purposes of the Act.

2. Interpretation of the definition of "Collector" under Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
The majority opinion interprets the definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) to include "Additional Collector" for all purposes, including the Act. This interpretation is based on the principle that statutory rules are an integral part of the Act. The dissenting opinion argues that the definition in the rules should not extend to the Act and should be confined to the rules themselves.

3. The impact of the amendment introduced by Notification No. 110/81-C.E., dated 29-4-1981:
The majority opinion asserts that the amendment to Rule 2(ii) by Notification No. 110/81-C.E. has the effect of equating the Additional Collector with the Collector for all purposes, including adjudication under Section 33 of the Act. The dissenting opinion, however, contends that this amendment should only apply to the rules and not extend to the Act.

4. The status of statutory rules vis-`a-vis the Act:
The majority opinion holds that statutory rules have the same status as the Act and should be treated as part of the Act for all purposes. This view is supported by various Supreme Court rulings and the scheme of the Central Excises and Salt Act, which relies heavily on rules for its operation. The dissenting opinion argues that rules cannot override or extend the clear provisions of the Act.

5. The implications of administrative hierarchy and functional rank:
The majority opinion dismisses the argument that the administrative hierarchy and pay scale should determine the rank of the Additional Collector. Instead, it focuses on the functional rank and the inclusive definition provided in the rules. The dissenting opinion, however, emphasizes that the Additional Collector is administratively subordinate to the Collector and thus lower in rank.

6. The right of appeal under Sections 35 and 35B of the Act:
The majority opinion concludes that appeals against the orders of the Additional Collector should lie directly to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Act, as the Additional Collector is deemed a "Collector." The dissenting opinion argues that such an interpretation would deprive appellants of their substantive right to two stages of appeal, first to the Collector (Appeals) and then to the Appellate Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The majority opinion holds that the term "Collector" includes "Additional Collector" for all purposes, including adjudication under Section 33 of the Act, and thus appeals against the orders of the Additional Collector should lie directly to the Appellate Tribunal. The dissenting opinion, however, maintains that the Additional Collector is lower in rank and appeals against his orders should first lie to the Collector (Appeals) and then to the Appellate Tribunal.

---