Statutory jurisdiction prevails over administrative monetary limits, so adjudication beyond Board limits remains legally valid.

Administrative monetary-limit circulars do not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute. On that basis, adjudication by a Deputy Commissioner of excise demands exceeding the Board-prescribed monetary limits was treated as an administrative irregularity, not a legal defect affecting the validity of the proceedings. The document distinguishes between work allocation through administrative directions and statutory jurisdiction, and concludes that departure from the circular did not render the adjudication invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner could adjudicate excise demands exceeding the monetary limits fixed by the Board's circular and whether such adjudication suffered from legal infirmity.

Analysis: The order noted that the dispute was confined to the jurisdictional effect of the Board's monetary-limit circular and not to the merits of the duty demand. It was held that administrative directions allocating work among officers cannot curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute. Applying the same principle to the monetary-limit circular, the Tribunal treated any departure from such administrative limits as, at most, an irregularity in administration and not a defect going to the legality of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The Deputy Commissioner's adjudication of the notices in excess of the monetary limits was held to be legally valid.

---