Jurisdiction under central excise penalty proceedings upheld despite amendment, as valid prior notices and transfer cured objections.

Proceedings under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q were treated as penal in nature, with Section 11A relevant only for the duty-demand limitation period. The Collector and Additional Collector were competent adjudicating authorities, and the statutory definition of Collector encompassed the Additional Collector. The 27-12-1985 amendment required adjudication by the Collector when the extended period was invoked, but it did not invalidate notices already validly issued by a Central Excise Officer before that date or require fresh notices from the Collector. Transfer of the pending matter and a fresh hearing cured any jurisdictional objection.

---

---

Issues: Whether the proceedings transferred to the Collector and the show cause notices issued by the Superintendent were without jurisdiction after the amendment to Section 11A, and whether fresh notices by the Collector were .

Analysis: The proceedings were not treated as pure Section 11A proceedings but as penal proceedings under Rule 9(2) and Rule 173Q, with Section 11A referred to only for the time limit applicable to duty demands. The Collector and the Additional Collector were both proper officers and competent adjudicating authorities, and the definition of Collector included Additional Collector. The amendment of 27-12-1985 required adjudication by the Collector where the extended period was invoked, but it did not invalidate notices already validly issued by a Central Excise Officer before that date nor require fresh notices to be issued by the Collector. The transfer of the pending matter and the fresh hearing afforded to the appellants cured any objection on this score.

Conclusion: The preliminary objections were rejected and the proceedings and notices were held to be valid and within jurisdiction.

---