Additional Collector treated as Collector for appellate purposes; appeal lies directly to the Appellate Tribunal, not Collector (Appeals).

The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 expressly includes an Additional Collector, so an order passed by that officer is treated as an adjudication by a Collector for appellate purposes. On that basis, the statutory appeal from an Additional Collector's order lies directly to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and not to the Collector (Appeals). The decision also reads the statutory scheme as supporting the appellate route determined by the nature of the adjudicating authority, with contemporaneous notifications confirming that understanding.

---

---

Issues: Whether the post of Additional Collector of Central Excise was included within the definition of Collector for the purposes of adjudication and appeal under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Central Excise Rules, 1944, so that an appeal from an order passed by the Additional Collector lay directly to the Appellate Tribunal and not to the Collector (Appeals).

Analysis: The definition of "Collector" in Rule 2(ii) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 was read as expressly including an Additional Collector. The Court held that the language of the definition was not confined to any one category and that the words "and includes an Additional Collector" qualified the whole definition. It further held that the statutory scheme under Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 contemplated adjudication by the Collector and Assistant Collector, with delegated powers exercisable by other officers only by authorisation of the Board. The notifications by which Additional Collectors were invested with powers of a Collector were treated as confirming the contemporaneous understanding of the statute. The Court rejected the view that the Additional Collector was merely a subordinate authority for appellate purposes and held that the nature of the adjudicating authority determined the appellate route.

Conclusion: The appeal from the order of the Additional Collector lay to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and not to the Collector (Appeals); the challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdictional view failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be dismissed because the impugned order correctly treated the order of the Additional Collector as one appealable directly to the Appellate Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory definition of "Collector" expressly includes an Additional Collector, an adjudication by the Additional Collector is to be treated as adjudication by a Collector for appellate purposes, and the appeal lies on that footing.

---