Jurisdiction and marketability in excise: corrigendum lacked authority, and de novo adjudication was ordered on excisability.

An Assistant Commissioner was held to lack authority to issue a corrigendum on his own where the show cause notice had been made answerable to the Commissioner; the later memorandum was treated as restoring the correct position, not as a fresh notice or review. The matter also turned on whether fabricated wagon parts had emerged as distinct commercial commodities and were marketable, because those findings were necessary to determine excisability. As the impugned order did not record clear findings on marketability, the case was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity to adduce evidence and be heard.

---

---

Issues: Whether the corrigendum issued by the Assistant Commissioner reducing the duty demand and altering the forum for reply was within jurisdiction, and whether the matter required de novo adjudication on the question of marketability of the goods.

Analysis: The notice had been made answerable to the Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner was held to have no authority to issue the corrigendum on his own when the matter was before the Commissioner for adjudication. The later memorandum was treated as restoring the correct position and not as a fresh show cause notice or a review order. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned order did not record clear findings on whether the fabricated wagon parts emerged as distinct commercial commodities and whether they were marketable, both of which were necessary to determine excisability.

Conclusion: The corrigendum could not be sustained as issued without authority in the manner done, and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication with an opportunity of hearing and evidence on the question of marketability.

---