Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Superintendent had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate in view of the Board's circulars and the amended scheme of Section 11A.
Analysis: Under the amended Section 11A, the proviso no longer confined issuance of notice in cases involving fraud, collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts to the Collector, but empowered a Central Excise Officer. Section 2(b) defined Central Excise Officer broadly to include officers such as the Deputy Commissioner and other departmental officers, and Section 37B enabled the Board to issue instructions only for uniform administration and within the confines of the Act. The circulars issued by the Board were therefore administrative directions for work allocation and could not curtail jurisdiction expressly conferred by statute.
Conclusion: The Superintendent had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notices and the Deputy Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate, and the Board's circulars did not invalidate their actions.
Ratio Decidendi: Administrative circulars cannot override or whittle down jurisdiction conferred by statute on excise ; where the Act vests power in a Central Excise Officer, a Board circular is only directory and cannot render the notice or adjudication without jurisdiction.