Territorial jurisdiction for customs notices must be expressly conferred; unauthorised notice and resulting adjudication were set aside.

Territorial jurisdiction to issue a customs show cause notice must be specifically conferred by competent authority and cannot be assumed. Although DGCEI officers were vested with powers equivalent to customs officers under the cited notifications, no territorial allocation had been assigned to the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Chennai. In the absence of such jurisdiction under Section 5(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the show cause notice was without authority and the adjudication based on it was also invalid; both were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Chennai had territorial jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and whether the adjudication based on that notice was valid.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that officers of the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence were invested with powers equivalent to customs officers under Notification No. 31/2000-Cus. (N.T.) dated 09.05.2000, as amended by Notification No. 69/2000-Cus. (N.T.) dated 23.11.2000, but no territorial jurisdiction had been assigned to the Additional Director General, DGCEI, Chennai. Jurisdiction cannot be assumed and must be conferred by competent authority under the enabling provision. In the absence of a territorial allocation under Section 5(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The show cause notice and the consequent order were held to be bad in law and were set aside, with the appeals allowed.

---