1985 (9) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Confirms Jurisdiction in Excise Case Despite Location Dispute

ANNA MATCH WORKS AND ANOTHER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS

ANNA MATCH WORKS AND ANOTHER Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MADRAS - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 459 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras.2. Reliability of statements with contradictions.3. Reliability of evidence based on labels.4. Anomalies in the orders regarding penalties.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras:The primary issue was whether the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, had jurisdiction to adjudicate the case regarding the seizure of matchboxes in Yadameri Village, Chittoor District, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad. The applicants argued that only the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad, had jurisdiction, referring to Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Rule 2(ii)(A) of the Central Excise Rules. The Tribunal, however, found that the factories from which the matches were allegedly removed were within the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, and therefore, he had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case. The Tribunal noted that the licensing, excise control, and submission of returns were all under the Madras Collectorate. The Tribunal also pointed out that there could be situations where more than one authority might have jurisdiction, drawing an analogy with Section 178 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Tribunal concluded that there was no substance in the argument that the proceedings were vitiated by lack of jurisdiction.2. Reliability of Statements with Contradictions:Although the Tribunal did not find it necessary to delve into the arguments regarding the contradictions in the statements of the persons concerned, it was one of the points raised by the applicants. They contended that due to the contradictions between the initial and subsequent statements, none of these statements should have been relied upon.3. Reliability of Evidence Based on Labels:The applicants also argued that the evidence based on the labels of the appellants was unreliable and should not have been relied upon. However, the Tribunal did not address this point in detail in the present context.4. Anomalies in the Orders Regarding Penalties:The applicants pointed out anomalies in the orders passed by the Board on the question of penalties. The Tribunal, however, did not find it necessary to set out the arguments regarding the penalties in the present context.Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges:The Tribunal's order was delivered per S. Venkatesan, Senior Vice-President, and there were no separate judgments delivered by different judges.Reference to High Court:The Tribunal decided to refer the question of law regarding the jurisdiction to the High Court, reformulated as: 'Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the proceedings before the Collector of Central Excise, Madras, leading to his order dated 29-3-1973, were not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction on the part of the adjudicating officer.' Both parties agreed to this reformulation, and the reference was finalized and sent to the High Court for a decision.This comprehensive summary covers all the relevant issues and maintains the legal terminology and significant phrases from the original judgment.