Back
1995 Supreme(Mad) 922
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.A. SWAMI AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU
Madura Coats Limited - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Madurai - Respondents
Writ Appeal Nos. 1101 & 1102/1995
Decided On : 13 November 1995
The Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the excise duty payable by the petitioner, and the adjudicatory authority was entitled to determine whether the particular goods fell under Heading 59.02 or 59.05.
Headnote:
CENTRAL EXCISE - JURISDICTION - ADJUDICATION - TYRE CORD FABRIC - CLASSIFICATION - HEADING 59.02 OR 59.05 - CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF ACT - ALTERNATIVE REMEDY OF APPEAL - AVAILABILITY - EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NOT WARRANTED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of tyre cord fabric, challenged the orders of the Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise adjudicating the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the periods 1-4-1987 to 7-10-1990 and 8-10-1990 to 29-2-1992, respectively. The petitioner contended that the Collector and Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to adjudicate that the tyre cord fabric in question fell under Heading 59.05, when the excise duty had already been paid on the basis that the tyre cord fabric in question fell under Heading No. 59.02.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the excise duty payable by the petitioner, as they were the authorities competent to pass any order or decision under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (the Act). The court further held that the adjudicatory authority was entitled to determine whether the particular goods fell under Heading 59.02 or 59.05, and that the contention of the petitioner that the adjudicatory authority was not right in holding that the tyre cord fabric in question fell under Heading 59.05 or 59.02 was not acceptable.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the excise duty payable by the petitioner? 2. Whether the adjudicatory authority was entitled to determine whether the particular goods fell under Heading 59.02 or 59.05?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the excise duty payable by the petitioner, as they were the authorities competent to pass any order or decision under the Act. 2. The adjudicatory authority was entitled to determine whether the particular goods fell under Heading 59.02 or 59.05, as it was necessary for the effective discharge of their functions.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ appeals, set aside the common order passed by the learned single Judge, and declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court further directed the Appellate Tribunal and the Collector (Appeals) to entertain the appeals, if filed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of the judgment, and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, without going into the question of limitation.
K.A. SWAMI, C.J
These two appeals arise out of the common order dated 8-2-1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 7793 and 7588 of 1993 respectively. Petitioner is the same in both the writ petitions and it has sought for quashing the order of the Collector of Central Excise dated 2-4-1992 adjudicating the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the period from 1-4-1987 to 7-10-1990 and also the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise dated 26-6-1992 adjudicating the excise duty payable by the petitioner for the period from 8-10-1990 to 29-2-1992.
2.Even though before the learned single Judge a preliminary objection was raised that as the petitioner has substantive right of appeal against both the orders, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted and it was brought to the notice of the learned single Judge a decision of a Division Bench of this Court, the learned single Judge has over-ruled the preliminary objection and has gone into the merits of the matter and dismissed the writ petitions holding that the tyre cord fabric in question falls under the Heading 59.05 of Chapter 59 of the Central Excise Tariff Act as found in page 502 of the Central Excise Tariff of India 1986-87, IV Edition published by the Central Law Office, New Delhi. Aggrieved by the common order, the petitioner in the writ petitions has come up in appeals.
3.Learned Senior Counsel Shri Goving Swaminathan appearing for the appellant-petitioner contended that the Collector and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise had no jurisdiction to adjudicate that the tyre cord fabric in question fell under Heading 59.05, when the excise duty had already been paid on the basis that the tyre cord fabric in question fall under Heading No. 59.02, that the whole thing has been considered ignoring the law bearing on the point and that, therefore, it is not necessary for the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. In support of the aforesaid submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the decisions inA.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs, Bombay v.Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and L. Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly and also the decision of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi inSwastic Rubber Products v. Union of India.
4.On the contrary, Mr. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court inMadura Coats Ltd. v.Collector of Central Excise, Madurai and also the decisions of a Division Bench of this Court inIndian Steel Rolling Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Collector of Customs, Madras v. Madras Electro Castings P. Ltd.
5.Though both the counsel have made their submissions on the merits of the case also, as we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that it is not necessary for the appellant to avail the remedy of appeal as the Collector and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise have acted without jurisdiction, we do not consider it necessary to deal with the contentions having a bearing on the merits of the case.
6.In both these cases, the Collector and the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, respectively have made an adjudication in exercise of the powers conferred upon than under the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). That they have jurisdiction to adjudicate is not disputed before us. What is disputed is that they have no jurisdiction to determine as to whether the tyre cord fabric in question falls under the Heading 59.02 or 59.05 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. It may be pointed out here that on such determination only, the quantum of liability to pay the excise duty depends. In the event if it is held that the tyre cord fabric in question falls under the Heading 59.02, there is a vast concession that is available to the assessee,
