Administrative circulars cannot curtail statutory adjudicatory power; higher-value excise cases were remanded for decision on merits.

Administrative circulars limiting Assistant Commissioners' adjudicatory power to cases below a monetary threshold could not override notifications issued under statutory authority. The Tribunal treated the higher-value adjudication as, at most, an administrative irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect, following later reasoning that rejected annulment on that basis. The contrary view was distinguished. The impugned orders were therefore not set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the matters were remanded for fresh decision on merits after affording the parties an opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving duty amounts exceeding Rs. 50,000, and whether the impugned orders deserved to be set aside and the matters remanded for decision on merits.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier view that the Board's circulars limiting the adjudicatory power of Assistant Commissioners to cases below Rs. 50,000 were only administrative instructions and could not override the relevant notifications issued under the statutory powers conferred by Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. It also noted that the larger issue had been considered in the later decision in Jaydee Agro Chemicals, where the restriction was treated as an administrative irregularity and not a legal infirmity. The contrary view based on J.K. Textiles was distinguished in light of the later reasoning and the notifications relied upon.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner's adjudication was not treated as a jurisdictional defect warranting annulment, and the matters were remanded for decision on merits after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative circulars cannot curtail statutory adjudicatory powers conferred by the governing notifications and the statute; any excess over such circulars constitutes at most an administrative irregularity, not a legal infirmity.

---