Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. G.K.Steels and Allied Industries - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/943362
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnMay-22-2009
Case NumberAppeal No. E/1238 of 2004
Judge HON’BLE MS.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE-PRESIDENT & HON’BLE MR. P.KARTHIKEYAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
AppellantCommissioner of Central Excise, Madurai
RespondentG.K.Steels and Allied Industries
Advocates:For the Appearing Parties: V.V. Hariharan, JCDR. R. Thiagarajan, Advocate
Excerpt:
jyoti balasundaram in this case, the asst. commissioner of central excise determined the liability of the assesses to duty under the compounded levy scheme, confirmed demands raised in different show-cause notices and also imposed a penalty of rs.25 lakhs upon the assesses. the adjudication order was challenged before the commissioner (appeals) who accepted the contention of the assesses that the asst. commissioner did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate notices for the reason that no question of valuation or classification was involved and the monetary limit prescribed for adjudication by asst. commissioner/dy. commissioner was rs.2 lakhs and monetary limits for adjudication by addl. commissioner in such cases was rs.10 lakhs in terms of circular no. 299/15/97-cx dated. 27.2.97, and hence he set aside the order passed by the asst. commissioner and remitted the case for fresh decision by the competent authority. hence this appeal by the revenue. 2. we have heard both sides and we find that the view as canvassed by the assesses and accepted by the commissioner (appeals) has been accepted by the tribunal in the case of cce pondicherry vs raipur abrasives (p) ltd. vide final order no. 619/07 dated. 22.5.07. therefore, the commissioner (appeals) is right in remitting the case to the competent authority who in such cases is the commissioner. therefore, no error is to be found in the impugned order as the demands will have to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional commissioner of central excise. we uphold the impugned order of remand and reject the appeal.
Judgment:

Jyoti Balasundaram

In this case, the Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise determined the liability of the assesses to duty under the compounded levy scheme, confirmed demands raised in different show-cause notices and also imposed a penalty of Rs.25 lakhs upon the assesses. The adjudication order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who accepted the contention of the assesses that the Asst. Commissioner did not have any pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate notices for the reason that no question of valuation or classification was involved and the monetary limit prescribed for adjudication by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner was Rs.2 lakhs and monetary limits for adjudication by Addl. Commissioner in such cases was Rs.10 lakhs in terms of Circular No. 299/15/97-CX dated. 27.2.97, and hence he set aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner and remitted the case for fresh decision by the competent authority. Hence this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We have heard both sides and we find that the view as canvassed by the assesses and accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the Tribunal in the case of CCE Pondicherry Vs Raipur Abrasives (P) Ltd. vide Final Order No. 619/07 dated. 22.5.07. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) is right in remitting the case to the competent authority who in such cases is the Commissioner. Therefore, no error is to be found in the impugned order as the demands will have to be adjudicated by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise. We uphold the impugned order of remand and reject the appeal.