Fresh excise demand notice can proceed on new investigative material despite an earlier settlement-type communication and jurisdiction objection.

A prior settlement-type communication that did not record a reasoned adjudication on the assessee's objections did not bar a later excise demand notice, where the new notice rested on fresh investigative material and distinct allegations of suppression, misstatement and short-accounting. The later notice was therefore treated as a fresh proceeding rather than a reopening of finally decided issues. The text also explains that, under the statutory scheme and Rule 6, the Collector could exercise powers through subordinates, and that pre-amendment transfer and amendment provisions did not defeat jurisdiction where the matter had not attained final determination. A challenge based on the notice not being signed personally by the Collector was rejected on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector's letter dated 3-2-1982 amounted to an adjudication or decision so as to bar a fresh show cause notice; and whether the Collector had jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 for demand of duty for the extended period under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis: The communication of 3-2-1982 referred to the earlier show cause notice and the assessee's request to settle the matter, but it did not record a reasoned finding on the objections raised. Even so, the later notice could not be treated as a mere attempt to reopen the same matter, because it was founded on fresh material unearthed by subsequent investigations, including allegations of suppression, mis-statement, and short-accounting not covered by the earlier notice. The Tribunal further held that, under the scheme of the Act and the Rules, the provisions of the rules form part of the enactment and Rule 6 enabled the Collector to exercise the powers of his subordinate. The subsequent amendment to Section 11A and the transfer provisions did not deprive the Collector of jurisdiction in a matter that had not attained final determination. The objection that the notice was invalid because it was not signed by the Collector personally was also rejected in the factual setting of a pre-amendment notice issued through the Superintendent to show cause before the Collector.

Conclusion: The earlier letter did not bar the subsequent proceedings, and the Collector's show cause notice dated 12-5-1983 was held to be within jurisdiction and valid.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later excise demand notice is founded on fresh investigative material and distinct allegations of suppression or misstatement, it is not barred by an earlier settlement-type communication, and the Collector may exercise jurisdiction under the Act and Rules by virtue of Rule 6 read with the statutory scheme.

---