Jurisdictional defect in a show cause notice can be raised on appeal when the issuing officer lacked valid statutory authority.

A jurisdictional objection to a show cause notice may be raised at the appellate stage because a defect going to the authority of the issuing officer affects the competence of the proceedings themselves. On the facts, the notices signed by an Assistant Director, Directorate of Anti-Evasion, were not shown to be supported by a valid empowering notification at the relevant time. The later notification appointing such officers as Central Excise Officers indicated that earlier notifications did not automatically cover that cadre. The notices were therefore without jurisdiction, and the adjudication proceedings founded on them were also invalid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the objection that the show cause notice was issued by an officer not duly empowered under the relevant notifications could be raised at the appellate stage. (ii) Whether the show cause notices issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Anti-Evasion, were without jurisdiction and invalid, rendering the ensuing adjudication proceedings void.

Issue (i): Whether the objection that the show cause notice was issued by an officer not duly empowered under the relevant notifications could be raised at the appellate stage.

Analysis: Jurisdictional defects go to the root of the matter and are not barred merely because they were not urged before the lower authorities. The earlier authorities relied on by the respondent concerned special factual settings or procedural irregularities, whereas a challenge to the very authority of the officer issuing the notice involves the competence of the proceedings themselves. The objection was therefore entertainable and could be examined in appeal.

Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection was rightly entertained at the appellate stage.

Issue (ii): Whether the show cause notices issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Anti-Evasion, were without jurisdiction and invalid, rendering the ensuing adjudication proceedings void.

Analysis: The notifications on record showed that, before the specific notification bringing the Directorate of Anti-Evasion within the cadre of Central Excise Officers with effect from 1 April 1986, the appointments and investments of power related to officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and did not cover the Directorate of Anti-Evasion as such. The later notification expressly appointed officers of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion as Central Excise Officers, which indicated that the earlier regime did not automatically confer such authority. Since the notices were signed by an officer described as Assistant Director, Directorate of Anti-Evasion, and there was no valid empowerment under the applicable notification at the relevant time, the notices lacked jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were jurisdiction and invalid, and the adjudication proceedings based on them were also invalid.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded because the initiating notices were issued without lawful authority, and the resulting orders could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice issued by an officer who has not been validly appointed or invested with the requisite statutory powers is without jurisdiction and void ab initio, and such a foundational defect can be raised even at the appellate stage.

---