Monetary jurisdiction in excise adjudication requires remand for fresh decision when notices exceed the officer's competence.

An adjudication made beyond the Assistant Collector's monetary jurisdiction could not be sustained because the duty demanded in each show cause notice exceeded the Board-prescribed limit. The appellate authority therefore had to set aside the order for lack of competence. Once that defect was found, the matter could not be left without further action; it had to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the proper authority, as setting aside the order without remand would amount to virtual quashing of the notices. The dispute was accordingly sent back for readjudication by the competent authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Assistant Collector lacked competence to adjudicate the show cause notices because the duty involved exceeded the prescribed monetary limit. (ii) Whether, after setting aside the adjudication on that ground, the matter had to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the competent authority.

Issue (i): Whether the Assistant Collector lacked competence to adjudicate the show cause notices because the duty involved exceeded the prescribed monetary limit.

Analysis: The duty demanded in each of the three show cause notices exceeded the monetary limit fixed for the Assistant Collector by the Board's circular. An adjudication made beyond such monetary jurisdiction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: Yes. The Assistant Collector was not competent to adjudicate the notices.

Issue (ii): Whether, after setting aside the adjudication on that ground, the matter had to be remanded for fresh adjudication by the competent authority.

Analysis: Once the adjudication was set aside for want of monetary competence, the appellate authority was required to direct readjudication by the proper authority. Setting aside the order without remand had the effect of virtually quashing the show cause notices, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: Yes. The matter had to be remanded for readjudication by the competent authority.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order was unsustainable and the dispute was sent back for fresh adjudication of the show cause notices by the competent authority.

Ratio Decidendi: An adjudication made beyond the adjudicating authority's monetary jurisdiction cannot stand, and where such an order is set aside, the proper course is remand for fresh adjudication by the competent authority rather than virtual quashing of the notices.

---