AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
,,"Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of red mud,",
,,press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of these,
,,"materials, have been used; all other articles of stone,",
,,"plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or of similar materials,",
,,not elsewhere specified or included,
,6807.10,"- Goods, in which more than 25% by weight of red",
,,"mud, press mud or blast furnace slag or one or more of",
,,"these materials, have been used",
,6807.20,"- Blocks, slabs, concrete beams and stairs of a kind",Nil
,,used in prefabricated buildings of Heading 94.06,
,807.90,,
It was, however, submitted that this judgment requires reconsideration as the provisions of Section 33 and Section 37(2)(b) [sic 37(2)(ib)] of the",,,
Central Excise Act, 1944 have not been noted. Section 33 merely deals with power of adjudication in cases of confiscations and penalties. It provides",,,
that where anything is liable to confiscation or any person is liable to a penalty, such confiscation or penalty may be adjudged without limit by a",,,
Commissioner and in case of confiscation not exceeding Rs 500 and imposition of penalty not exceeding Rs 250 by an Assistant Commissioner of,,,
Central Excise or Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise. The proviso provides that the Central Board of Excise and Customs may, in the case of",,,
any officer performing the duties of an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner reduce the limits indicated in clause (b) of this section and,,,
may confer on any other officer the powers indicated in clauses (a) or (b). In our view, Section 33 makes no difference to the position of law as",,,
enumerated in Pahwa Chemicals case [(2005) 2 SCC 720 : (2005) 181 ELT 339] . To the extent Section 33 permits the Board to reduce limits or,,,
confer power on other officers the Board may do so. But this is in respect of adjudication. Significantly in respect of issuance of show-cause notices,",,,
no such power has been given to the Board. This itself indicates that where the legislature so intended it specifically so provided. Thus where the,,,
legislature has purposely omitted to so provide, it clearly indicates that the Board was not authorised to limit powers under the Act. Section 37 merely",,,
gives rule-making power to the Central Government. No rule could be shown to us under which the Board could whittle down the jurisdiction of a,,,
Central Excise Officer as given to that officer under the Act.,,,
We, therefore, see no reason to take a different view and we reaffirm the decision given in Pahwa Chemicals case [(2005) 2 SCC 720 : (2005) 181",,,
ELT 339] .,,,
In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.",,,