Jurisdiction to re-adjudicate excise notices remained with the Assistant Commissioner where earlier adjudication was reopened on judicial direction.

Amendment of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act did not divest the Assistant Commissioner of jurisdiction where the show cause notices had already been adjudicated and were later taken up again only under a High Court direction for re-adjudication. The trade notice on transfer of pending notices applied only to matters still pending, not to notices that had been decided earlier and merely required fresh consideration pursuant to judicial order. The Assistant Commissioner was therefore competent to pass the impugned order, and the Revenue's objection based on transfer of pending proceedings failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the amendment of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the show cause notices and whether the notices stood transferred to the Commissioner of Central Excise as pending matters.

Analysis: The show cause notices had already been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner before the writ proceedings culminated in a direction for re-adjudication. The later re-adjudication was undertaken pursuant to the High Court's order, and on both relevant dates the Assistant Commissioner possessed the power to decide the matter. The trade notice regarding transfer of pending notices did not apply to notices that had already been adjudicated and were only being re-examined on judicial direction.

Conclusion: The Assistant Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and the Revenue's objection based on transfer of pending notices failed.

---