COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. BHILWARA SPINNERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have come before us in the Larger Bench on account of reference made by a Bench consisting of a single Member. The reference is reproduced below :

(2.) ARGUING the appeal, ld. D.R. explains that the order has been passed on a wrong appreciation of adjudication powers of Assistant Collector in respect of Modvat disputes. He submits that the Board had issued separate orders fixing powers of Field Officers with regard to recovery action under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and Modvat disputes under Rule 57 -1 and U. Ministry under its Letter F.No. 267/86/88 -CX. 8, dated 20 -12 -1988 had also clarified that show cause notices under Rule 57 -1 for wrong availment of Modvat credit due to suppression of facts, wilful mis -statement, collusion etc. involving 5 year period, should be issued by the Commissioner. In other cases, Assistant Collector was the competent authority. The ld. D.R. clarifies, that the present case did not involve suppression of facts, wilful mis -statement etc. Therefore, the A.C. was fully competent to decide the case. He also submitted that this position remains concluded by the order of the Tribunal in many cases including in the case of C.C.E., Jaipur v. E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd. vide Final Order No. A/348/9/ -NB and order quoted in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 819 (Tribunal) -1998 (27) RLT 681 (CEGAT) [C.C.E., Jaipur v. Jaypee Agro Chemical Ltd. and Ors.]

(3.) THE ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that he had not raised any objection that the Assistant Collector did not have jurisdiction to decide the case. His client is only being put to difficulties by remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication, there -by making them move from forum to forum without getting any relief. His position is the same even today after the lapse of 4 years.