Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 an adjudication order passed by a Central Excise officer after the statutory transfer of pending extended-period proceedings to the Collector of Central Excise was a nullity, and whether such an order could affect the competent authority's power to proceed with the matter.
Analysis: Section 8 of the Central Excises and Salt (Amendment) Act, 1985 mandated that pending proceedings involving the extended period of limitation shall stand transferred to the Collector of Central Excise on 27-12-1985. Once the legislature had ousted the authority of the Assistant Collector or Superintendent to continue those proceedings, any order passed by such an officer in relation to the transferred matter was without inherent jurisdiction. An order made in the absence of jurisdiction is void ab initio, non est, and incapable of generating legal consequences. The competent authority was therefore not required to first set aside or review that void order before exercising jurisdiction over the same proceedings.
Conclusion: The orders passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise or Assistant Collector of Central Excise after 26-12-1985 in such cases were a nullity, and they did not curtail the Collector of Central Excise from proceeding with the matter.