CALCUTTA STEEL INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are 13 appeals filed by M/s. Calcutta Steel Industries and Ors., being aggrieved with the common Order -in -Appeal, dated 25 -10 -1994 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. The Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Patiala had vacated the demand show cause notices issued to the manufacturers with regard to the classification of steel products, which the manufacturers had cleared as bars under sub -heading No. 7214.90 of the Central Excise Tariff, which the Deptt. had classified under sub -heading No. 7211.19/7211.30 as flats. The Department had filed appeals with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the ground that the amount involved in the demand show cause notices exceeded Rs. 50,000/ - in each case and that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise was not competent to adjudicate the cases where the duty involved was above Rs. 50,000/ - in terms of Board's particular Circular No. 208/26/92 CX -6 (Circular No. 3/92 CX -6), dated 14 -5 -1992. The appellate authority agreed with the Department that the adjudicating authority had exceeded his jurisdiction and has exercised powers beyond his competency. The appeals filed by the Deptt. were allowed and the orders passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise were set aside with the directions that the consequent action to remedy the situation may be taken by the Deptt.

(2.) AS all the appeals arise out of common Order -in -Appeals and involve similar issue for consideration, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(3.) SHRI P.S. Bedi, Consultant appearing for the appellants submitted on 22 -5 -2000 when the matter came up for hearing, that Board's circular was not binding on the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise in view of the powers conferred on him under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It was his plea that on merits the matter already stands decided in favour of the appellants and that the order -in -appeals was no order in the eye of law. In reply, Shri Satnam Singh, SDR submitted that the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, had not acted under Board's instructions and had exceeded his jurisdiction. Order passed in excess of jurisdiction was no order in the eye of law. As the Asstt. Collector of Centred Excise was not competent to drop the demands in these cases, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had rightly set aside the invalid orders passed by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise.