Provisional central excise assessment requires authorised officer jurisdiction; assessment by Superintendent was invalid and Revenue's appeal failed.

Provisional assessment of central excise duty under Rule 9B could be exercised only by the proper officer authorised for that purpose, namely an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector. A notification issued under Rule 2 had confined that power to an Assistant Collector, so an assessment made by a Superintendent was without jurisdiction. The jurisdictional objection was therefore upheld, the Collector (Appeals) order setting aside the assessment was sustained, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether provisional assessment under Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules could be made by a Superintendent of Central Excise, or only by an officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector.

Analysis: The provisional assessment of Central Excise duty is governed by Rule 9B(1). The notification issued under Rule 2, relied upon in the matter, specified that the proper officer to exercise powers under Rule 9B(1) was an officer of the rank of Assistant Collector. Since the assessment in question had admittedly been made by the Superintendent, the jurisdictional objection was upheld.

Conclusion: The Superintendent lacked jurisdiction to make the provisional assessment, and the order of the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the assessment was ; the Revenue's appeals failed.

---