TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of Notification 175/86 for Small Manufacturers: Jurisdiction and Void Orders</h1> <h3>WILSON & CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE</h3> WILSON & CO. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal) Issues: Interpretation of Notification 175/86 for small scale manufacturers; Jurisdiction of the Collector to initiate proceedings based on a void orderInterpretation of Notification 175/86 for small scale manufacturers:The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Notification 175/86 for small scale manufacturers. The appellant, having two manufacturing units, argued that they should be entitled to the benefits of the notification even without an SSI certificate if certain conditions were met. The appellant contended that the Notification allowed for such exceptions under provisos (a) and (b) of Para 4. The learned counsel highlighted that the issue raised was not covered by any existing case law. On the other hand, the Department argued that a liberal interpretation of the Notification could lead to anomalies and that the benefits were meant for small scale manufacturers with SSI certificates. The Department emphasized the contextual interpretation of the Notification to uphold the spirit of providing benefits to small scale manufacturers.Jurisdiction of the Collector to initiate proceedings based on a void order:Another crucial aspect of the judgment revolved around the jurisdiction of the Collector to initiate proceedings based on a void order issued by the Superintendent of Central Excises. The appellant contended that the Superintendent's order, directing payment without proper jurisdiction, was null and void, allowing the Collector to initiate proceedings independently under the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. The appellant cited a Special Bench ruling to support their argument that a void order does not preclude a competent officer from taking action. The Tribunal agreed that when an order lacks jurisdiction and is void ab initio, it does not have legal consequences and can be challenged. The Tribunal decided that the issues raised had broader implications and should be resolved by a Larger Bench, directing the matter to be placed before the President of CEGAT for constituting a Larger Bench to address the legal issues comprehensively.Conclusion:The judgment delved into the complex interpretation of Notification 175/86 for small scale manufacturers, emphasizing the need to balance statutory provisions with the intended benefits for such manufacturers. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified the legal implications of void orders and the jurisdiction of competent officers to act in such situations. The decision to refer the matter to a Larger Bench highlighted the significance and complexity of the legal issues involved, ensuring a thorough and authoritative resolution.
TaxTMI 