S. Duggal, Member (J) for herself and on behalf of F.S. Gill, J., S. Venkatesan Sr. V.P.

1. This matter before us is as a result of reference having been made by the Regional Bench (North) comprised by Shri M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (Judicial) and Shri I.J. Rao, Member (Technical). The situation which occasioned the reference arose because the above-stated Bench felt disinclined to endorse the view, held by the same Bench earlier, constituted by two different Members, namely, Shri AJ F. D'Souza, Member (Technical) and Shri A.K. Srinivasmurthy, Member (Judicial) on the question as to whether Additional Collector, Central Excise could be deemed to be a 'Collector' for the purpose of determining the forum of appeal, against an order or decision, passed by the former. This is how the present larger Bench (hereinafter referred to as the Bench) came to be constituted, for resolving the issue.

2. The Bench had its first sitting on 18-5-1983, when Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, who is Counsel for the two Appellants in Appeals No. ED (DEL) STAY No. 10/82-NRB and No ED (DEL) STAY No. 18/82-NRB, which came up before the second Regional Bench who made the reference, was apparently there to defend the view expressed in the order of reference, while Shri M. Ganesan, Advocate, who happened to be Counsel in another appeal, which had been filed under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, was also present to watch the proceedings. Shri D.N. Kohli, Advocate had presumably filed some appeals, before the Tribunal against some order of the Additional Collector, Central Excise, but had withdrawn the same, as a sequel to the earlier order of the North Regional Bench expressing the view that the term "Collector" as used in section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) would not take in its sweep the Additional Collector of Central Excise. Shri Kohli was thus there to defend this view. In addition, Shri K. Narasimhan, President, Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Bar Association and Shri R.K. Jain, Secretary of the said Bar were present as Interveners, having been invited to assist the Bench because of the far-reaching importance of the question involved. The Department was represented on the first day of hearing by Shri K.D. Tayal, SDR, thereafter by Mrs. Vijay Zutshi, SDR but on subsequent hearings, by Shri Y.R. Gupta, SDR, and it was he who eventually addressed arguments on behalf of the Department.

3. Shri Harbans Singh, Advocate, at the outset, formulated the question falling for consideration of this Bench, which he put as under : -

"As to whether 'Additional Collector' is a 'Collector' for the purposes of section 33 of the Act ?"

He emphatically stated that this was so, by virtue of the definition of Collector of Central Excise, as contained in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules).

4. He elaborated his arguments by the assertion that the Central Excises and Salt Act, was not a self-contained Act, like the Customs Act, but was only a piece of streamlined legislation inasmuch as, it only contained broad and general principles on the subject of excise duty, leaving all the details to be filled up by subordinate legislation, whether by way of rules to be framed in exercise of the powers conferred by section 37 of the Act or by notifications or orders issued by the Central Government. He quoted page 75 of Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes (Twelfth Edition) in support of his contention wherein the scope of the rules and regulations made with reference to law, described as 'streamlined statute', was discussed. He further referred to a ruling of the Supreme Court in MANU/SC/0312/1960 : AIR 1961 SC 751 (State of U.P. v. Babu Ram), which was a case under the Police Act, and Police Rules framed under the said Act, and where this passage had been cited with approval, by holding that : "Rules made under a statute must be treated for all purposes of constructi