Skip to content


Surya Polymers (P) Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided On

Reported in

(1999)(112)ELT894TriDel

Appellant

Surya Polymers (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Collector of C. Ex.

Excerpt:


.....circumstances it was held that show cause notices signed by the assistant director of anti evasion were without jurisdiction, were invalid and that orders proceeding therefrom could not sustain. shri jain submitted that this judgment was challenged by the revenue before the supreme court but the supreme court has not stayed its operation. he stated that judgment was taken note of in the later judgment of the tribunal vide final order no. 1540 /90-a, dated 22-10-1990. he stated that following the ratio of the judgment, show cause notice issued in the present case has to be held to be without jurisdiction and invalid. on this ground, shri jain did not wish to go into the merits of the case.3. shri g.d. sharma, dr claimed that directorate of anti evasion was a part and parcel of the directorate of revenue intelligence and, therefore, the officers of the directorate of anti fvasion could exercise powers of central excise officers where such power was conferred upon equal ranked officers of the directorate of revenue intelligence. this situation would continue till the date of the notification no. 225/86 whereby officers of anti evasion and revenue intelligence were separately.....

Judgment:


1. The impugned order of the Collector was made pursuant to the show cause notice dated 1-10-1985 issued by the Director, Anti Evasion in the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi.

2. Shri A.K. Jain, Advocate appearing for the appellants drew our attention to the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Mallhoo Miyan Yakub Miyan v. Collector of Central Excise 1990 (49) E.L.T. 464 and stated that in this judgment in an identical circumstances it was held that show cause notices signed by the Assistant Director of Anti Evasion were without jurisdiction, were invalid and that orders proceeding therefrom could not sustain. Shri Jain submitted that this judgment was challenged by the Revenue before the Supreme Court but the Supreme Court has not stayed its operation. He stated that judgment was taken note of in the later judgment of the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 1540 /90-A, dated 22-10-1990. He stated that following the ratio of the judgment, show cause notice issued in the present case has to be held to be without jurisdiction and invalid. On this ground, Shri Jain did not wish to go into the merits of the case.

3. Shri G.D. Sharma, DR claimed that Directorate of Anti Evasion was a part and parcel of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and, therefore, the officers of the Directorate of Anti Fvasion could exercise powers of Central Excise officers where such power was conferred upon equal ranked officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. This situation would continue till the date of the Notification No. 225/86 whereby officers of Anti Evasion and Revenue Intelligence were separately invested with such powers. Referring to the Notification No. 191/84-CE., dated 6-8-1984 he stated that this notification not being issued in supersession of the earlier Notification No. 127/80 does not take away the power invested in the officers of the Anti Evasion vide later notification. He, therefore, submitted that show cause notice was not hit by lack of competence of the signatory.

5. We find that entire issue has been fully discussed in the cited case of the Tribunal. In coming to the decision in the cited case, the Tribunal had taken note of the arguments advanced by the JDR. On consideration of the arguments Tribunal observed as. under :- "The ld. JDR has also argued that the officer concerned, namely, the Assistant Director, continued to be an officer in DRI and is stating "Directorate of Anti Evasion (CE)" was not necessary and that it should be ignored. But this argument is not correct because if he was appointed as an officer in Directorate of Anti Evasion, then in light of the above discussion, he was not appointed as a Central Excise Officer and so he could not have exercised such powers invested in a Central Excise Officer. The ld. Advocate has produced copies of several notifications whereby various officers have been appointed either in . the Directorate of A. E. or DRI and thereby they have been appointed in that particular Directorate only.

So, it can be seen from these points that the Directorate of A. E. and DRI were treated as separate entities and officers were appointed separately in both the Directorates and they were appointed in specific Directorate only. Otherwise, the officer concerned could have been appointed as an officer, in A.E./D.R.I. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the show cause notices in all the above appeals signed by the Assistant Director (A.E.) were without jurisdiction and so were invalid. As show cause notices were invalid, the adjudication proceedings following thereon were also rendered invalid." Following the ratio of this judgment, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the Collector.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //