Valid conferment of Collector powers and a prima facie show cause notice were upheld despite bias and jurisdiction objections.

Where the statute and rules authorised the Board to confer Collector's powers, the notification investing the Director of Anti-evasion with those powers was valid. The inclusive definition of Collector and the rule-based power to appoint and authorise officers were read together, and no inconsistency was found. The show cause notice was also upheld because it was only a prima facie notice in tentative terms, supported by investigation material. Allegations of bias, overlapping jurisdiction and premature invocation failed, since the evasion issues were for adjudication and the investigating officer's role did not by itself vitiate the notice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Central Board could validly invest the Director of Anti-evasion with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise. (ii) Whether the show cause notice was liable to be quashed on the grounds of bias, overlapping jurisdiction, or premature invocation of the excise provisions.

Issue (i): Whether the Central Board could validly invest the Director of Anti-evasion with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise.

Analysis: The statutory scheme defined a Central Excise Officer broadly and also contained an inclusive definition of Collector, which extended to officers specially authorised under the rules to exercise the powers of a Collector. The rules empowered the Board to appoint officers and confer the powers of such officers under the rules. The notification investing officers of the Directorate of Anti-evasion with the powers of Collector was therefore treated as having been issued within the statutory framework, and no inconsistency was found between the definition of Collector and the conferment of powers by notification.

Conclusion: The investment of powers in the Director of Anti-evasion was held to be valid and within the Act and Rules.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notice was liable to be quashed on the grounds of bias, overlapping jurisdiction, or premature invocation of the excise provisions.

Analysis: The notice was treated as a prima facie notice to show cause, couched in tentative language and supported by material collected in investigation. Since the alleged evasion involved activities across several States and different periods, the Court found no overlapping of jurisdiction. It also held that the question whether clandestine removal or contravention of the relevant rules was made out could be decided only in the adjudication proceedings, and the fact that the issuing authority had conducted the investigation did not by itself establish bias or vitiate the notice.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was held not to be invalid on the grounds urged by the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the notice and to the conferment of authority on the Director of Anti-evasion failed, and the excise proceedings were allowed to continue before the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and rules authorise the Board to invest an officer with the powers of a Collector, such conferment is valid, and a prima facie show cause notice alleging evasion cannot be quashed merely because the same officer investigated the matter or because the full merits are yet to be adjudicated.

---