1992 (3) TMI 171 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal permits new grounds for applicant, highlighting jurisdiction and legal questions can be raised anytime. Grounds to be reviewed at final hearing.

NANDI METAL ROLLING MILLS Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds raised by the applicant-assessee, emphasizing that jurisdictional and legal questions can be raised at any ... Appeal Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and adjudicate.2. Legality of seizure and requirement of security for provisional release.3. Competence to confiscate goods and impose fines.Summary:1. Jurisdiction to issue show cause notice and adjudicate:The applicant-assessee contended that the respondent lacked jurisdiction to issue and adjudicate the show cause notice for goods seized beyond their territorial limits. The goods were seized by officers of P & I Unit of the Dy. Collector, Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh, but the show cause notice was issued by the respondents in Orissa. The Tribunal considered various rulings, including *Union of India v. Tara Chand Gupta & Bros.*, and concluded that jurisdictional questions can be raised at any stage. The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds questioning jurisdiction to be raised, citing that such grounds are legal in nature and can be raised even at the appellate stage.2. Legality of seizure and requirement of security for provisional release:The applicant argued that the seizure was illegal as it was not effected by the proper officer, and thus, the requirement to furnish security for provisional release was equally illegal. The Tribunal noted that the seizure was conducted by officers outside their jurisdiction, and the show cause notice was issued by a different authority. The Tribunal referenced Section 12 of the Customs Act and Notification No. 68/63, which apply to seizures under the Central Excise Act, and concluded that only the proper officer within the jurisdiction of the producer's premises could effect a seizure. The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds to be raised, emphasizing that the legality of the seizure and subsequent actions would be examined during the final hearing.3. Competence to confiscate goods and impose fines:The applicant contended that the respondent could not confiscate the goods in absentia or impose fines, nor could they recover fines from the security furnished. The Tribunal reviewed several rulings, including *Krishna Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs* and *Natwarlal Jethalal Solani & Others v. Collector of Customs*, which supported the view that jurisdictional questions could be raised at any stage. The Tribunal held that the grounds questioning the competence to confiscate and impose fines were legal in nature and permissible to be raised. The merit of these grounds would be considered at the final hearing.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the additional grounds raised by the applicant-assessee, emphasizing that jurisdictional and legal questions can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. The merit of these grounds will be examined during the final hearing.