Statutory jurisdiction and draft adjudication order principles govern validity where internal work allocation and final communication are in dispute.

Statutory adjudication power under the Central Excise Act and Rules remained with the Collector despite later administrative allocation of work, because internal distribution instructions could not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute; the jurisdiction objection was rejected. A signed adjudication document intended only as a draft did not become a final enforceable order merely on communication, because finality required completion of the fair copy or final order and formal communication; the communicated order was therefore treated as a draft. On that basis, a prima facie challenge to the validity of the communicated order was made out and the impugned order was stayed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Collector who passed the adjudication order retained jurisdiction notwithstanding the subsequent allocation of adjudication work to another Collector by executive instructions. (ii) Whether the communicated order was only a draft and therefore not a final adjudication order capable of enforcement.

Issue (i): Whether the Collector who passed the adjudication order retained jurisdiction notwithstanding the subsequent allocation of adjudication work to another Collector by executive instructions.

Analysis: The statutory powers of a Central Excise Officer were derived from the Act and the Rules, and the power of adjudication vested in the Collector under the Act could not be curtailed by administrative allocation of work. Jurisdiction under the Rules was territorial, and the posting of another Collector for internal distribution of work did not divest the original Collector of the power conferred by statute.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected and the Collector was held to have retained authority to adjudicate.

Issue (ii): Whether the communicated order was only a draft and therefore not a final adjudication order capable of enforcement.

Analysis: The affidavit of the Collector showed that the signed document was only a draft order intended for communication, and the file note directed preparation of a fair copy. Applying the principle that a draft does not become a judgment or final order until formally delivered or completed, the order communicated to the parties could not be treated as the final adjudication order.

Conclusion: The communicated order was held to be only a draft and not a final adjudication order.

Final Conclusion: A prima facie case was made out on the validity of the communicated order, the impugned order was stayed, and the stay applications were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A draft adjudication order, though signed, does not attain finality unless the fair copy or final order is completed and communicated, and internal administrative allocation of work cannot override statutory jurisdiction conferred by the Act.

---