Statutory adjudicatory power prevails over administrative circular limits, leaving non-compliance as an irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect.

The Assistant Commissioner's adjudicatory authority under section 33 of the Central Excise Act was held to arise from statutory notifications issued by the Central Government, and not to be limited by administrative circulars prescribing a monetary cap. Those circulars under Rule 233 were treated as supplemental guidance only, so non-observance of the circular-based restriction was an administrative irregularity rather than a jurisdictional defect. The orders were therefore not invalid on that ground, and the matter was remanded for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner could adjudicate cases involving duty exceeding Rs. 50,000 despite administrative circulars restricting such powers, and whether non-observance of those circulars vitiated the adjudication orders.

Analysis: The adjudicatory power under section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was held to flow from statutory notifications issued by the Central Government conferring authority on the officer without monetary limit. The circulars issued for administrative guidance under Rule 233 of the Central Excise Rules were treated as supplemental instructions only. Statutory notifications were held to prevail over such administrative instructions. Accordingly, failure to follow the circular-based monetary restriction was characterised as an administrative irregularity and not a jurisdictional defect affecting the validity of the orders passed under section 33.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner's orders were held not to suffer from legal infirmity on this ground, and the revenue's appeals were allowed by way of remand for consideration on merits.

---