Jurisdictional objection over Assistant Commissioner adjudication was rejected as only an administrative irregularity, with remand for fresh adjudication.

CEGAT considered whether an Assistant Commissioner could adjudicate duty disputes exceeding Rs. 50,000. It followed its earlier view that such adjudication, even if made by the Assistant Commissioner, was at most an administrative irregularity and did not amount to a jurisdictional defect or legal infirmity. On that basis, the jurisdictional objection was rejected, the impugned order was set aside, and the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate cases involving duty exceeding Rs. 50,000.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision on the same point and held that adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner in such cases amounted at most to an administrative irregularity. It did not create a legal infirmity or jurisdictional defect in the adjudication.

Conclusion: The objection to jurisdiction was rejected. The impugned order was set aside and the matters were remanded for de novo adjudication by the Commissioner (Appeals).

---