Jurisdiction under amended Section 11A barred Assistant Collector from deciding extended-period excise demand after the 1985 change.

The amended Section 11A restricted the Assistant Collector's power to adjudicate central excise demands involving the extended period after the 1985 amendment, so a 1988 order based on alleged suppression could not be sustained where limitation was specifically raised. The appellate authority had not examined the time-bar objection, and the demand fell within the post-amendment jurisdictional constraint. The order was therefore treated as incompetent on jurisdictional grounds and set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to adjudicate a central excise demand involving the extended period after the 1985 amendment to Section 11A, and whether the impugned order was sustainable on limitation.

Analysis: The appeal turned on the admitted position that the demand was adjudicated in 1988 and involved allegations of suppression of facts, attracting the post-amendment restriction on the Assistant Collector's power to adjudicate beyond the prescribed period. The time-bar objection had been specifically raised and was not examined by the appellate authority. In view of the amended Section 11A, the Assistant Collector was not competent to decide such a matter, rendering the order unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order was set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to adjudicate beyond the permissible period, and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.

---