Final Order No. A/1119/98-NB arising from in Appeal No. E/43/98-NB. Case: Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur Vs Mukti Transformer Ltd.. Central Information Commission

Case NumberFinal Order No. A/1119/98-NB arising from in Appeal No. E/43/98-NB
CounselFor Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR.
JudgesShri Lajja Ram, Member (T)
IssueCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Section 33
Citation1999 (111) ELT 767 (Tribunal)
Judgement DateSeptember 03, 1998
CourtCentral Information Commission

Order:

(Northern Bench At New Delhi)

  1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue being aggrieved with the order-in-appeal dated 20-11-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, the matter relates to the jurisdiction of the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise in adjudicating the Modvat matter in which the credit involved was Rs. 1,19,495/-. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi, had agreed with the submissions made by the appellants'' counsel that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise had exceeded his jurisdiction in deciding the matter. The appellate authority did not give any finding on the merits of the case.

  2. When the matter was called, no one appeared for the respondents, M/s. Mukti Transformers Ltd. Earlier the matter had come up on 27-7-1998. At that time also, no one appeared for the respondents. As the facts are not disputed and the question involved is only of jurisdiction, I am proceedings to deal with the matter on merits after hearing Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR, who is present for the appellants/Revenue.

  3. Shri Shiv Kumar, JDR, submitted that the Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise was competent to adjudicate the modvat matters in which the amount of duty involved was upto Rs. 2 lakh. He referred to the Central Board of Excise & Custom''s Circular No. 299/15/97, dated 27-2-1997 wherein the Central Board of Excise & Customs had clarified that those show cause notices were adjudication orders are not passed upto 28-1-1997 will be adjudicated as provided in that Circular. In category A, all cases involving fraud, collusion, any wilful mis-statement, suppression of facts or contravention of Central Excise Act/Rules made thereunder with intend to evade payment of duty and/or where extended period had been invoked in the show cause notices, were covered. In respect of cases which did not fall under the category A above, were to be adjudicated as under:

    Commissioner

    - without limit

    Addl. Commissioner /Deputy Commissioner

    - above Rs. 2 lakh and upto Rs. 10 lakh

    Asstt. Commissioner

    - upto Rs. 2 lakh

  4. I have carefully considered the matter. I find that the matter is covered by the Tribunal''s decision in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. M/s. Jay Dee Agro Chemicals Ltd. & Ors., Appeal No. E/172/97/NB. The Tribunal vide their Final Order...

To continue reading

Request your trial