Proper jurisdiction of excise officer governs duty demand; notice and penalty fail when issued by the wrong authority.

Demand of central excise duty and penalty was held to be without jurisdiction where the adjudicating authority was not the proper officer for the assessee. The notice and confirmation of demand under section 11A had to be issued by the assessing authority having territorial and functional jurisdiction over the registered assessee. The principle of comity of courts was found inapplicable, because it does not displace the authority of the officer legally empowered to assess and demand duty. The first officer to act does not acquire jurisdiction by priority. The demand and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty and the penalty imposed on the appellant were without jurisdiction because the adjudicating authority was not the proper officer.

Analysis: The appellant was registered in another Commissionerate, and the power to issue notice and confirm demand under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 lay with the assessing authority having proper jurisdiction over the assessee. The reasoning based on comity of courts was found inapplicable because that principle operates in overlapping territorial jurisdictions of different subordinate formations, not to displace the primacy of the proper excise officer. The authority that first acts does not acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of the officer legally empowered to assess and demand duty.

Conclusion: The demand and penalty were beyond jurisdiction and could not stand. The appeal was allowed.

---