Jurisdiction over export oriented units: duty proceedings by the wrong officer are void and cannot be sustained.

Duty demand against an export oriented unit must be initiated by the proper officer having jurisdiction over that unit. Where proceedings were commenced by an officer linked to the customs house of seizure, rather than the Deputy Commissioner competent over the EOU, the jurisdictional objection was upheld. The adjudicating authority gave no finding on that objection, and the appellate authority relied on an incorrect statutory basis. The adjudication order was treated as without jurisdiction, could not be sustained, and the appeal succeeded on the preliminary jurisdictional ground without examination of the merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of duty and the adjudication proceedings were without jurisdiction because they were not initiated by the proper officer having jurisdiction over the export oriented unit.

Analysis: The demand in respect of goods allegedly diverted from an export oriented unit has to be raised by the officer having jurisdiction over the unit where manufacture takes place. The adjudication here was initiated by the officer connected with the customs house where the goods were seized, while the officer having jurisdiction over the EOU was the Deputy Commissioner. The adjudicating authority gave no finding on this objection, and the appellate authority proceeded on an incorrect statutory basis. On the applicable legal position, the objection to jurisdiction was well founded.

Conclusion: The adjudication order was without jurisdiction and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the preliminary jurisdictional objection, and the impugned order was set aside without examination of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In matters concerning duty demand against an export oriented unit, the demand must be raised by the proper officer having jurisdiction over the unit, and proceedings taken by an officer lacking such jurisdiction are void.

---