BEL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE stay applications and the appeals are taken up together for disposal as per law. The appellant is a PSU Unit. The appellants have been denied the benefit of Notifications No. 205/88 -C.E., dated 25 -5 -88, No. 3/2001 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2001 and No. 6/2002 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2002. The Notifications granted benefit to solar photovoltaic modules and panels for water pumping and other applications. There is no reference to classification of goods or for valuation of the items in terms of the Central Excise Act and CETA.

(2.) THE preliminary objection raised by the counsel is that the peculiar jurisdiction to decide the matter of the appeals is more than Rs. 1.21 crore in one matter and Rs. 27.93 lakhs in another matter. Counsel submits that the item in question is power traffic signal system and solar street light. He pointed out that under Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, the adjudication without any limit can be done only by the Commissioner. He submits that the pecuniary jurisdiction up to 2 lakhs in terms of the Boards Circular No. 299/15/97 -C.Ex., dated 27 -2 -97, is vested on Deputy Commissioner, therefore, the adjudication done by the Deputy Commissioner is without jurisdiction and hence the matter has to go back to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. On this point miscellaneous order was passed in No. 1044/2004, dated 27 -12 -2004 calling upon the Revenue to file a reply on this point and in the meantime granting interim stay of the recovery proceedings.

(3.) LD . SDR has filed his reply today on behalf of the Commissioner. The Commissioner in para 3 of the reply has stated that notwithstanding the powers as laid down in Boards Circular No. 299/15/97 -C.Ex., dated 27 -2 -97, the Assistant Commissioner has powers to adjudicate the cases involving duty amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and above in all cases of determination of valuation and/or classification other than those covered under category (A) under para 3 of the circular.