Jurisdiction under customs exemption notification vested recovery power in the Assistant Commissioner, not the Commissioner of Customs.

Condition No. 8 of Notification No. 36/96-Cus placed the responsibility on the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to verify end-use of the imported goods and initiate recovery if the condition was breached. On a plain reading, the recovery mechanism under the notification was therefore vested in that authority and not in the Commissioner of Customs. A show-cause notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs was held to be without jurisdiction, and the impugned order was set aside with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner of Customs had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice and recover differential duty when Condition No. 8 of Notification No. 36/96-Cus placed the recovery mechanism on the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise.

Analysis: Condition No. 8 of Notification No. 36/96-Cus specifically required the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to ensure that the imported goods were used for the intended purpose and to take action for recovery if the condition was violated. On a plain reading, the power to initiate recovery under the notification was vested in that authority. The show-cause notice in the present case was issued by the Commissioner of Customs instead.

Conclusion: The Commissioner of Customs had no jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

---