1. The stay applications and the appeals are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellant is a PSU Unit. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Notifications No. 205/88-C.E., dated 25-5-88, No. 3/2001-C.E., dated 1-3-2001 and No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002.... The Notifications granted benefit to 'solar photovoltaic modules and panels for water pumping and other applications'. There is no reference to classification of goods or for valuation of the items in terms of the Central Excise Act and CETA.2. The preliminary objection raised by the counsel is that the peculiar jurisdiction to decide the matter of the appeals is more than Rs. 1.21 crore in one matter and Rs. 27.93 lakhs in another matter. Counsel submits that the item in question is 'power traffic signal system and solar street light'. He pointed out that under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, the adjudication without any limit can be done only by the Commissioner. He submits that the pecuniary jurisdiction up to 2 lakhs in terms of the Board's Circular No. 299/15/97-C.Ex., dated 27-2-97, is vested on Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the adjudication done by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction and hence the matter has to go back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. On this point miscellaneous order was passed in No. 1044/2004, dated 27-12-2004 calling upon the Revenue to file a reply on this point and in the meantime granting interim stay of the recovery proceedings.
3. Ld. SDR has filed his reply today on behalf of the Commissioner. The Commissioner in para 3 of the reply has stated that notwithstanding the powers as laid down in Board's Circular No. 299/15/97-C.Ex., dated 27-2-97, the Assistant Commissioner has powers to adjudicate the cases involving duty amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and above in all cases of determination of valuation and/or classification other than those covered under category (A) under para 3 of the circular.
4. We have heard both sides. Ld. SDR pointed out that the issue pertains to classification and valuation. The adjudication done by the Deputy Commissioner is in terms of law. However, counsel pointed out there was no question of classification or valuation involved in the matter.... It was plain and a simple case of grant of benefit of the Notifications in terms of the description in the Notifications on the specified goods. The Commissioner in reply filed today has not agreed with this submission and it is stated that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is as per law. Counsel again pointed out to Section 33 of the Central Excise Act and submitted that all the proceedings initiated by Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction and not in terms of law.
5. On a careful consideration and on perusal of the records, we notice that the issue pertains to grant of exemption of notification to the items namely 'solar photovoltaic modules and panels for water pumping and other applications and Non-conventional energy devices/systems specified in list 5 falling in any chapter. There is no question of classification of item involved nor Valuation. Therefore, in terms of Section 33 of the Central Excise Act and in terms of the Board's circular, Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The order passed is non est and is not enforceable. The matter has to go back to the original authority and shall be adjudicated under Section 33 of Central Excise Act. Therefore while allowing the stay applications, the appeals are taken up and matter remanded to Commissioner of Central Excise to adjudicate the matter in terms of the show cause notice and the reply filed by the appellants. The matter shall be readjudicated within a period of 4 months from the receipt of this order. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.