Jurisdictional limits under Central Excise adjudication bar Assistant Commissioner from deciding unpaid duty demands under Rule 96ZO

Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice for unpaid duty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the demand was a simple duty recovery arising from default under the compounded levy scheme. Board Circular No. 229/15/97-CX prescribed monetary limits for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and did not distinguish between demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demands under Rule 96ZO. As the amount exceeded the limits applicable to the Assistant Commissioner and even the Additional Commissioner, adjudication lay with the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the show-cause notice demanding unpaid duty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The demand arose from default in monthly duty payment under the compounded levy scheme and was a demand for unpaid duty simpliciter. The Board's Circular No. 229/15/97-CX dated 27-2-97 prescribed monetary limits for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and did not create any distinction between demands raised under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demands under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. As the amount involved exceeded the monetary limits applicable to the Assistant Commissioner and even the Additional Commissioner, the matter required adjudication by the Commissioner. The appellate authority was therefore correct in holding that the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate the show-cause notice, and the Revenue's challenge to the appellate order failed.

---