Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. N.M. Nagpal (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, New Delhi on 2 May, 2001
ORDER
S.S. Kang, Member
1. The appellants filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that in view of the instructions dated 15.9.92 the Joint Commissioner is the competent authority to adjudicated the case. Whereas, the case was adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, he set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Joint Commissioner of Cental Excise.
2. Learned Counsel submits that in this case a show cause notice was issued to the appellants in respect of their price list and the Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record, dropped the proceedings and Revenue filed the appeals against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. The learned Counsel submits that instructions dated 15.9.92 are for internal administration and these instructions are in respect of adjudication of Central Excise case other than cases relating to the approval of classification list and price list where some monetary restrictions were imposed for adjudication. His submission is that these instructions are not applicable in present case as the dispute is in respect of approval of price list. He also relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Triton Valves Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in 1997 (89) E.L.T. 233 (Tribunal). He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is set aside.
4. Heard learned JDR.
5. In this case the show cause notice was issued to the appellants in respect of their price list. On the facts of the present case the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise passed the adjudication order in respect of price list. Further we find that the Tribunal in the case of Triton Valves Ltd. Vs. C.C.E. (Supra) while interpretating the instructions relied upon y the commissioner held that the limiting the power of adjudication of the Assistant Collector to cases not involving Rs. 50,000/- as duty was by executive instructions of the Government and in case the Assistant Commissioner has exceeded the ceiling he had committed an administrative irregularity but that cannot be held to be a statutory infirmity.
6. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing the appeals on merit after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.