Additional charge does not defeat excise jurisdiction where the officer remains duly appointed as Commissioner under the statutory scheme.

A Commissioner already appointed as a Central Excise Officer retains that status when given additional territorial charge, and such allocation does not by itself require a fresh gazette notification for every posting. Reading Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, CESTAT Kolkata held that the distinction between appointment and territorial charge preserves jurisdiction in the officer holding additional charge. The Tribunal rejected the contrary view in Mall Eximp and upheld the Commissioner's authority to adjudicate the show cause notice and pass the order as Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Siliguri.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Commissioner who was holding additional charge of the Siliguri Commissionerate had jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice and pass the impugned order.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 2(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 3 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 was read as distinguishing between appointment as a Central Excise Officer and allocation of territorial charge. The Tribunal held that a person already appointed as a Commissioner remains a Central Excise Officer, and that assignment of additional charge by the supervisory hierarchy does not, by itself, denude jurisdiction or require a fresh gazette notification for every posting. It further held that the earlier view in Mall Eximp was not a correct exposition of the law and that the adjudicating authority was duly empowered to act as Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Siliguri.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional challenge failed and the adjudication by Shri C.M. Mehra was upheld as valid.

---