Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an Additional Collector of Central Excise could validly act and pass an order as Additional Collector of Customs in the absence of a separate appointment under the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The order turned on the interaction between the definition of "Collector" under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the appointments made under Notification No. 252/83-Cus. dated 27-8-1983. By the inclusive definition in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, an Additional Collector of Central Excise is treated as a Collector for the purposes of the excise law. On that basis, the appointment of a Collector of Central Excise as Collector of Customs under the notification was held to operate equally upon the Additional Collector of Central Excise within his jurisdiction. The absence of a separate notification appointing an Additional Collector of Customs was therefore not treated as fatal to jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected and the impugned order was held to be within jurisdiction, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory scheme treats an Additional Collector of Central Excise as a Collector for all purposes, a notification appointing the Collector of Central Excise as Collector of Customs extends to the Additional Collector acting within that jurisdiction without the need for a separate appointment as Additional Collector of Customs.