Proper officer designation under Central Excise Rules sustained; Superintendent could issue and adjudicate notices, and jurisdictional challenge failed.

The notification designating the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 named the Superintendent of Central Excise as the officer competent to issue and adjudicate show cause notices under Rule 57-I. No later notification was shown to have changed that position after the Board's circular dated 20-12-1988. The challenge based on want of jurisdiction failed because the notices in question were issued within the normal limitation period. The broader issue whether a different officer alone could act where the extended period applied was left open as it did not arise on the facts, and the recall application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise was the proper officer to issue and adjudicate show cause notices under Rule 57-I of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether the recall application could succeed on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notification issued under Rule 2 designating the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 named the Superintendent of Central Excise as the proper officer for Rule 57-I. No subsequent notification was shown to have altered that position after the Board's circular dated 20-12-1988. The challenge based on the circular did not assist the applicants because the notices in the present matter were issued within the normal period of limitation. The question whether a different officer alone could act in cases involving the extended period was left open as it did not arise on the facts.

Conclusion: The Superintendent of Central Excise was held to be the proper officer for issuing and adjudicating the notices, and the recall application was rejected.

---