2000 (6) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate authority overturns Collector's orders, citing Board circular. Tribunal confirms circular's binding nature.

CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGRAH

CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., CHANDIGRAH - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 691 (Tribunal) Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.2. Binding nature of the Board's Circular on the Assistant Collector.3. Classification of steel products.4. Validity of the adjudication process.5. Remand for re-examination on merits.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise:The core issue in these appeals was whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Patiala, had the jurisdiction to adjudicate cases where the duty involved exceeded Rs. 50,000/-. The Department argued that the Assistant Collector exceeded his jurisdiction as per Board's Circular No. 3/92 CX-6, dated 14-5-1992, which stipulated that only cases involving duty up to Rs. 50,000/- could be adjudicated by an Assistant Collector. The appellate authority agreed with this view, setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector on grounds of exceeding jurisdiction.2. Binding Nature of the Board's Circular on the Assistant Collector:The appellants contended that the Board's circular was not binding on the Assistant Collector in view of the powers conferred under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, the Department and the appellate authority maintained that the circulars issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) are binding on the Central Excise Officers. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court judgments in the cases of Ranadey Micronutrients and Paper Products Ltd., which held that such circulars are binding on the Department and must be followed to ensure consistency and uniformity in the administration of justice.3. Classification of Steel Products:The dispute also involved the classification of steel products cleared by the manufacturers as bars under sub-heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, which the Department classified under sub-heading No. 7211.19/7211.30 as flats. The Tribunal noted that the demands were raised pending the decision on the Special Leave Petition filed by the Department before the Supreme Court against the Tribunal's earlier decision classifying the goods as bars. The Supreme Court had subsequently dismissed the Department's petition, affirming the classification as bars.4. Validity of the Adjudication Process:The Tribunal examined the legal amendments to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly the changes effected by the Finance Act, 1992. The amendments allowed any Central Excise Officer, not just the Assistant Collector or Collector, to adjudicate cases. However, the Board's Circular No. 3/92 CX-6 set monetary limits for adjudication by officers of different ranks to avoid ambiguity and confusion. The Tribunal emphasized that not following the circular would lead to administrative chaos and undermine the justice system.5. Remand for Re-examination on Merits:Given that the Assistant Collector had adjudicated beyond his jurisdiction, the Tribunal agreed with the appellate authority's decision to set aside the orders. However, to ensure justice, the Tribunal remanded the cases to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for re-examination on merits. The Tribunal directed that the matters be re-examined after providing the appellants an opportunity to present their case, and then pass speaking, appealable orders as per law. The Tribunal referenced the Orissa High Court's decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Krishna Chandra Pande, which held that proceedings initiated validly but disposed of by an officer without jurisdiction should be finalized by the officer having jurisdiction.Conclusion:All appeals were allowed by way of remand for re-examination on merits by the competent jurisdictional adjudicating authority.