Monetary jurisdiction limit under central excise adjudication held to control competence; objection can be raised at any stage.

A Board circular fixing a monetary limit for Assistant Commissioner adjudication under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act was treated as jurisdictional. Because the duty demand exceeded the prescribed limit and did not relate to approval of a classification list or price list, the Assistant Commissioner lacked competence to adjudicate. The jurisdictional objection was held to go to the root of the matter and could be raised at any stage. The adjudication therefore could not stand, and the matter lay before the competent adjudicating authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate a demand under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 when the duty involved exceeded the monetary limit prescribed by the Board circular.

Analysis: The Board circular prescribed a monetary limit of Rs. 50,000 for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner in duty-demand cases under Section 11A, except matters relating to approval of classification list or price list. The demand in the present matter was far above that limit, and the case was not one concerning approval of a classification list or price list. The issue of jurisdiction could be raised at any stage as it went to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner was not competent to adjudicate the demand, and the matter lay before the competent adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The jurisdictional objection succeeded, and the adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a Board circular fixes a monetary limit for adjudication by a particular authority, any demand beyond that limit, unless falling within the stated exceptions, is beyond that authority's jurisdiction and the objection may be raised at any stage.

---