Short-levy adjudication requires valid statutory delegation; a Superintendent's order was struck down for lack of jurisdiction.

A show cause notice for short-levy was not vitiated by vagueness merely because it referred to Rule 63 and Notification No. 22/82, since its substance clearly alleged under-filling of match boxes and demand of duty at the tariff rate; that challenge failed. However, adjudication of a short-levy demand under Section 11A could be made only by the statutory authority or by a valid delegation of power. As no lawful delegation was shown to authorise the Superintendent to decide the demand, the adjudication was without jurisdiction and the demand was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice and demand were vitiated for vagueness or want of proper application of mind on account of references to Rule 63 and Notification No. 22/82; (ii) Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise had jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate a short-levy demand in the absence of valid delegation under the Act.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice and demand were vitiated for vagueness or want of proper application of mind on account of references to Rule 63 and Notification No. 22/82.

Analysis: The reference to Rule 63 and the notification was not decisive of the demand. The substance of the notice was that, because of admitted under-filling of match boxes, duty was demanded at the tariff rate rather than at the concessional rate earlier adopted. On that basis, the notice could not be treated as vague or as having been issued without application of mind.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice on the ground of vagueness failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise had jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate a short-levy demand in the absence of valid delegation under the Act.

Analysis: A short-levy demand is governed by Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the authority competent to determine such duty is the Assistant Collector or the Collector, as the case may be. The order under challenge was passed by the Superintendent, and no valid notification or delegation under Section 37A(d) was shown to confer such power. In the absence of proof of lawful delegation, the adjudication was incompetent and without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The original adjudication was jurisdiction and the impugned order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The demand was set aside because the adjudicating authority lacked the requisite statutory competence for short-levy adjudication, and the appellate order merging with it also fell.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand for short levy under Section 11A must be determined only by the authority empowered by statute or by a valid delegation of that power, and an order passed by an officer lacking such competence is without jurisdiction.

---