Jurisdiction of excise officer under Rule 49 turns on monetary limits fixed for proper officers and demand competence.

Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 placed duty demands on the proper officer where goods were not accounted for or were not shown to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident. Departmental instructions and circulars fixed monetary limits for officers acting as proper officers, with demands above Rs. 5,000 falling within the Collector's powers. Because the demand in question exceeded the Assistant Collector's competence, the finding that he lacked authority to confirm it was sustainable, even though the proviso was inaccurately stated. The demand order was therefore without jurisdiction and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction and competence to adjudicate and confirm the duty demand under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 in view of the monetary limits prescribed for the proper officer.

Analysis: Rule 49 placed the demand on the proper officer where goods were not accounted for or were not shown to have been lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident. The record showed that departmental instructions and circulars fixed monetary limits for officers functioning as proper officers under the rule, and that demands above Rs. 5,000 were within the Collector's powers. The demand in question was far beyond the limit vested in the Assistant Collector. The finding of the Collector (Appeals) that the Assistant Collector lacked authority was therefore sustainable, even though the proviso referred to by that authority was not accurately stated.

Conclusion: The Assistant Collector had no jurisdiction to pass the demand order, and the Revenue's challenge to the setting aside of that order failed.

---