Clandestine removal notices require prescribed higher jurisdiction; notice issued by a lower authority was invalid for want of jurisdiction.

A show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of excisable goods, non-payment of duty and suppression of facts in statutory records had to be issued by the officer vested with the prescribed higher jurisdiction under the applicable departmental instructions. Because the notice was issued by a Deputy Commissioner instead of the required Additional Commissioner, the jurisdictional objection succeeded and the notice was treated as invalid. The ratio is that, where the allegations themselves disclose clandestine removal and intent to evade duty, jurisdiction must conform to the prescribed hierarchy; a notice issued by a lower authority is without authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether a show cause notice alleging clandestine removal of excisable goods without payment of duty and without accounting in statutory records had to be issued by the Additional Commissioner, and whether notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner was without jurisdiction.

Analysis: The notice itself alleged clandestine removal without duty payment and suppression of material facts in the statutory records. On that footing, the case fell within the category requiring issue of notice by the Additional Commissioner under the applicable departmental instructions and jurisdictional scheme. Since the notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the jurisdictional objection succeeded.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was held to be invalid for want of proper jurisdiction, and the revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the allegations in the show cause notice disclose clandestine removal with suppression of facts and intent to evade duty, the notice must be issued by the officer having the prescribed higher jurisdiction; a notice issued by a lower authority is invalid.

---