Jurisdictional defect in central excise proceedings led to setting aside of the order and related penalty.

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad lacked jurisdiction because the B-1 bond had been executed by the merchant-exporter with the Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai, who fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. The impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside. As the foundational order failed on jurisdictional grounds, the penalty imposed on the appellant could not survive and was also set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and, if not, whether the penalty imposed on the appellant could survive.

Analysis: The B-1 bond had been executed by the merchant-exporter with the Maritime Commissioner, Mumbai, who fell within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I. On that basis, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Once the order itself was set aside for want of jurisdiction, the penalty imposed on the appellant could not survive.

Conclusion: The impugned order was without jurisdiction and was set aside, with the penalty on the appellant also set aside.

---