2018 (11) TMI 904 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI – Jurisdiction – power of Superintendent of Central Excise to adjudicate the matter – SSI Exemption – Held that:- It is specifically stated in para 2 clause (i) of circular No. 1049/37/2016-CX dated 29.9.2016 that the Superintendent will not be having jurisdiction to adjudicate case involving taxability, classification, valuation etc.
–
The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the Order in Original passed by the Superintendent dated 16.2.2017 holding that Superintendent has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Though the appellant has put forward arguments on merits of the case also, I find that since the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is confined to the lack of jurisdiction by the Superintendent and the matter having been remanded for reconsideration, the said arguments on merits are premature to be considered at this stage.
–
Appeal dismissed – decided against appellant. – Appeal No. E/41107/2018 – Final Order N
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
of taxability is outside the jurisdiction of Superintendent to adjudicate. The Commissioner (Appeals) after hearing the parties, decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of department and set aside the order passed by the Superintendent and remanded the matter for re-adjudication by AC / DC. The appellant is now before the Tribunal against such order. 2. The ld. consultant Shri S. Ramachandran appeared and argued on behalf of the appellant. He submitted that the Superintendent who had adjudicated the matter had dropped the proceedings and the department had not preferred appeal on merits before the Commissioner (Appeals) and they had confined their appeal on the issue of jurisdiction. Since there was no appeal filed by the department on merits, the order in original dated 16.2.2017 passed by the Superintendent would apply and therefore the demand cannot sustain. It is also argued by him that the appellant having purchased the factory only 7.1.2015, the appellant has to be considered
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he concerned division. As per circular No. 1049/37/2016-CX dated 29.9.2016, the Superintendent is also given jurisdiction to adjudicate matters which are not exceeding ₹ 10 lakhs. It is specifically stated in para 2 clause (i) of the said circular that the Superintendent will not be having jurisdiction to adjudicate case involving taxability, classification, valuation etc. Therefore, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the Order in Original passed by the Superintendent dated 16.2.2017 holding that Superintendent has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Though the appellant has put forward arguments on merits of the case also, I find that since the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is confined to the lack of jurisdiction by the Superintendent and the matter having been remanded for reconsideration, the said arguments on merits are premature to be considered at this stage. Therefore, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly remanded the
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =