AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. No.,Central Excise Officer,"Amount of service tax or
CENVAT credit specified in a
notice for the purpose of
adjudication under section 83A",,
(1).,(2).,(3).,,
(1).,"Assistant Commissioner of
Central Excise or Deputy
Commissioner of Central
Excise",Not exceeding Rs. 5 lakhs,,
S. No.,"Central Excise
Officer","Central Excise
Officer whose
power are to be
exercised",Jurisdiction,Purposes
(1).,(2).,(3).,(4).,(5).
1.,"All the
Commissioners
of Central Excise","The Commissioner
of Central Excise","Throughout
the territory
of India","Investigation
and
adjudication
of such
cases, as may
be assigned
by the Board
2.,"The
Commissioners
of Central Excise
(Adjudication)","The Commissioner
of Central Excise","Throughout
the territory
of India","Investigation
and
adjudication
of such
cases, as may
be assigned
by the Board
as Central Excise Officers and their monetary limits for purpose of adjudication were fixed in column (3) of the notification.,,,,
The argument of the petitioners solely relying on notification dated 19.04.2007 is misplaced. The notification of 2007 is not in supersession of the,,,,
earlier notification. The two notifications operate for different purposes. The notification of 2005 appoints various officers as Central Excise Officers,,,,
and specifies the monetary jurisdiction for the purpose of adjudication, whereas under the 2007 notification, the Commissioners of Central Excise have",,,,
been appointed as the Central Excise Officers giving them jurisdiction throughout India, only for cases of investigation and adjudication which are",,,,
assigned by the Board. As per the 2005 notification, all the officers having designations mentioned therein have been appointed as Central Excise",,,,
Officers.,,,,
The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order dated 08.12.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.4 is without,,,,
jurisdiction as respondent No.4 was not a Central Excise Officer, is rejected, in view of the 2005 notification.",,,,
The second limb of the argument is based upon clause 11.2 of the Master Circular. Before dealing with the contention, we may quote clauses 11.2",,,,
and 11.5 of the Master Circular :-,,,,
11.2 Other important points :,,,,
Cases involving taxability, classification, valuation and extended period of limitation shall be kept out of the purview of adjudication by Superintendents.",,,,
Such cases, upto rupees 10 Lakhs, shall also be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner in addition to the cases exceeding",,,,
rupees 10 Lakhs but not exceeding rupees 50 lakh.,,,,
i. Refund matters (including rebate), shall be adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner/ Assistant Commissioner without any monetary limit",,,,
ii. In case different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue answerable to different adjudicating authorities, Show Cause Notices",,,,
involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest amount of duty.,,,,
11.5 In case different show cause notices have been issued on the same issue to same noticee(s) answerable to different adjudicating authorities,",,,,
Show Cause Notices involving the same issue shall be adjudicated by the adjudicating authority competent to decide the case involving the highest,,,,
amount of duty.,,,,
The contention is that a common issue is involved in all the show cause notices issued to various noticees, hence, there cannot be different",,,,
adjudicating authorities. All the show cause notices should be adjudicated by a competent adjudicating authority who has jurisdiction to decide the case,,,,
involving the highest amount of duty.,,,,
There is a fallacy in the argument. Clause 11.2 (ii) of the Master Circular does not mean that show cause notices issued to different noticees on,,,,
the same issue shall be adjudicated by one authority. It would relate only to cases where on a similar issue different show cause notices have been,,,,
issued to the same noticee.,,,,
The circular will save the noticee running from pillar to post before various adjudicating authorities and defending similar notices at different levels.,,,,
The view is fortified by a reading of clauses 11.2 and 11.5 of the Master Circular. Clause 11.5 clarifies the position. If different show cause notices,,,,
have been issued on the same issue to the same noticee answerable to different adjudicating authorities, then all the show cause notices would be",,,,
decided by the adjudicating authority in a case involving the highest amount of duty.,,,,
The interpretation of clause 11.2 of the Master Circular as argued by the petitioners, if upheld, would have catastrophic effects. If various show",,,,
cause notices issued to various noticees throughout the country are to be dealt with by one adjudicating authority, it would be impossible to consolidate",,,,
similar notices throughout the country at one place. The purpose of the clause to save noticees from harassment would be defeated. In fact their,,,,
predicament would be far worse. The petitioners' contention if accepted would require notices from all over the country to travel to another place to,,,,
contest the notices. Further, if all similar notices are to be decided by one Central Excise Officer, the adjudicating process may never conclude. Take",,,,
a case where the adjudicating authority dealing with several notices of a similar nature of various noticees has commenced and is about to conclude,,,,
the proceedings and at that stage, another similar notice is issued to other noticee, in whose case the amount involved is higher. If the petitioners'",,,,
contention is accepted, all the notices will have to be transferred to the adjudicating authority having jurisdiction for that amount. The proceedings will",,,,
start afresh and this process would have to be repeated again and again.,,,,
From a reading of the clauses 11.2 and 11.5 of the Master Circular, the position emerges that only if similar show cause notices are issued to the",,,,
same noticee by different adjudicating authorities, all such notices would be adjudicated by one adjudicating authority, i.e. the officer competent to",,,,
decide the case involving the highest amount of duty. The challenge to the order dated 16.09.2015 (Annexure P-1) also fails.,,,,
The writ petition is dismissed. However, since we have not adjudicated upon the merits of the case, the petitioners would be at liberty to avail their",,,,
remedy of a statutory appeal against the impugned order dated 8. 12.2016.,,,,