Jurisdiction over clandestine removal notices turns on competence under the proviso to Section 11A; invalid notice was quashed.

A show cause notice for alleged clandestine removal was treated as a proviso to Section 11A demand, not a routine six-month action under Rule 9(2), because the notice expressly invoked Section 11A and alleged suppression or evasion. The later corrigendum also indicated that adjudication was intended before the Additional Commissioner, confirming that the Superintendent was not the competent authority to invoke the proviso. On that basis, the notice was invalid, the impugned order was set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the show cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise was without jurisdiction because the demand was, in substance, under the proviso to Section 11A and not under Rule 9(2).

Analysis: The notice expressly invoked Section 11A and used the expression "clandestine removal", which indicated an allegation of suppression or evasion akin to the proviso to Section 11A rather than a routine action under Rule 9(2). The subsequent corrigendum also showed that the matter was intended to be adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner, reinforcing that the notice was not one issued merely by the proper officer for a normal six-month demand. In these circumstances, the Superintendent was not competent to issue the notice for action under the proviso to Section 11A.

Conclusion: The show cause notice was invalid and liable to be quashed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: When a show cause notice is, in substance, issued under the proviso to Section 11A for clandestine removal or suppression-based demand, it must be issued by the competent authority empowered to invoke that proviso; a notice issued by an officer lacking such competence is void.

---