Collector's jurisdiction under excise demand procedure upheld where rules authorised adjudication by the proper officer.

Section 11A and Rule 9(2) were read together with the definitions of "Central Excise Officer" and "proper officer" to determine whether the Collector could adjudicate the demand and penalty notice. The Tribunal held that Rule 6 enabled the Collector to perform duties or exercise powers assigned under the Rules, and that Rule 9(2) incorporated Section 11A only for the limitation period while leaving the demand to the proper officer. On that construction, the Collector had jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the adjudication was not void for want of authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Collector of Central Excise had jurisdiction to adjudicate the demand and penalty proceedings issued under Section 11A and Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis: The notice invoked Section 11A for recovery of duty and Rule 9(2) for demand under the self-removal procedure. The objection was that, under Section 11A as it then stood, adjudication after notice was to be undertaken by the Assistant Collector, and that the Collector could not assume that function. The Tribunal examined the statutory scheme, including the definition of "Central Excise Officer", the meaning of "proper officer", Rule 6 empowering the Collector to perform duties or exercise powers assigned to an officer under the Rules, and Rule 9(2), which incorporates Section 11A only for the limitation period while requiring demand by the proper officer. Prior decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court were relied upon to support the view that the Collector could exercise the adjudicatory power where the rules so permitted.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed. The Collector had jurisdiction to decide the matter, and the impugned adjudication was not void for want of authority.

---