1998 (5) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Collector's Re-Adjudication Deemed Without Jurisdiction Under Gold Act

KK. JEWELLERS Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

The Tribunal set aside the Collector's order dated 19-1-1994 for lacking jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968, and re-adjudicating the case ... Order - Finality of appellate order Issues:1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968.2. Validity of the impugned order dated 19-1-1994 by the Collector.3. Reopening of the case by the department post the Tribunal's final order.4. Legal implications of the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 on the case.Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise:The case involved a show cause notice issued to the appellants and partners of a firm regarding gold and gold ornaments not accounted for in statutory records. The matter was adjudicated by the Director of Publications, Customs and Central Excise, who ordered confiscation of the ornaments with an option for redemption and imposed a penalty. The Tribunal, in a final order, held that the Director's order lacked jurisdiction under the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Collector's subsequent order dated 19-1-1994 was challenged for re-adjudicating the case without proper authority, leading to the Tribunal setting it aside as lacking jurisdiction and authority in law.Validity of the Impugned Order:The Collector's order dated 19-1-1994 was deemed invalid as it was a re-adjudication of the case without proper jurisdiction. The Tribunal highlighted that the matter had already been concluded by their final order, and the Collector had no authority to presume a remand or re-adjudicate the case. The impugned order was set aside due to lacking legal authority and jurisdiction, ultimately leading to the appeal being accepted.Reopening of the Case by the Department:Despite the Tribunal's final order, the department reopened the case, calling for further submissions and a personal hearing. The appellants argued against this action, stating that the earlier order's setting aside by the Tribunal meant the proceedings should not continue. The department's stance was that since the excess gold ornaments were not accounted for, confiscation and penalties were warranted, regardless of the Gold (Control) Act's repeal. However, the Tribunal held that the reopening of the case and subsequent actions by the Collector were without jurisdiction and legal authority.Legal Implications of the Repeal of the Gold (Control) Act:The Collector's re-adjudication of the case based on an old show cause notice after the repeal of the Gold (Control) Act was deemed improper. The appellants argued that the Collector failed to consider the changed legal landscape post-repeal, showing a prejudged mindset similar to the earlier order. The Tribunal emphasized that the Collector's actions were not in line with the law, and the impugned order was set aside due to lacking authority and proper legal consideration.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of jurisdiction, legal authority, and adherence to due process in adjudicating cases under specific acts, even after their repeal. The Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order emphasized the need for proper legal procedures and considerations in such matters.