Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Bhilai Engg. Corp. on 20 July, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(121)ELT536(TRI-DEL)
ORDER P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 1-3-1994 passed by the Collector (Appeals) vide which he had reversed the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector who confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 2,923/-, Rs. 3,16,717/- and Rs. 1,65,694/- on the strength of three show cause notices dated 4-11-1992, 14-12-1992 and 3-2-1993 and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the respondents.
2. The respondents are 100% EOU. They received certain fabricated structures from M/s. Bhilai Engineering Corporation and colour coated corrugated sheets from M/s. Nippon Denro Ispat Ltd. by claiming exemption under Notification No. 123/81-CE but it was found that exemption under this notification was not available to them and they were served with three show cause notices vide which recovery of different duty amounts was proposed to be made from them. After getting their reply to those show cause notices, the Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demands of all the amounts detailed above and imposed penalty of Rs. 10,000/- through order-in-original dated 1-7-1993.
3. The respondents challenged the above said order of the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) through the impugned order had set aside on the sole ground that the Assistant Collector was not competent to adjudicate upon the matter as the duty amounts mentioned in all the three show cause notices exceeded his monetary limit specified by the Board vide letter dated 14-5-1992 (Circular No. 3/92-CEX. 6) reported in 1992 (60) E.L.T. T3.
4. The Revenue has questioned the validity of the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) on the ground that after setting aside the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that he was not competent to adjudicate the issue as the duty amount involved in the show cause notices was beyond his monetary limits, the Collector should have sent back the matter for readjudica-tion by the competent authority. But having not so done, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed that the Collector (Appeals) should have ordered readjudication of the matter by the competent authority while setting aside the order-in-original of the Assistant Collector on the ground that he acted beyond his monetary limits.
6. We have gone through the record. No doubt, the duty amount involved in each of the three show cause notices dated 4-11-1992,14-12-1992 and 3-2-1993 was more than Rs. 50,000/- which was the monetary limit of the Assistant Collector fixed by the Board through circular No. 3/92-CEX. 6 reported in 1992 (6) E.L.T. T3 and he was not competent to adjudicate upon those notices. But the Collector (Appeals) while quashing the order of the Assistant Collector on that ground was duty bound" to direct readjudication of the show cause notices by the competent authority. By having not so done, he had virtually quashed the show cause notices, which he could not legally do. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Collector (Appeals) cannot be termed as legal and valid in the eyes of law.
7. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the matter is sent back for readjudication of the show cause notices in question detailed above, by the competent authority.
7. The appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands allowed by way of remand.