Administrative circulars cannot restrict statutory adjudicatory jurisdiction where the statute and rules confer competence on the Deputy Commissioner.

Administrative circulars cannot curtail adjudicatory jurisdiction conferred by the statute and rules unless the enactment itself creates such a bar. A circular relied on by the Revenue was treated only as an administrative instruction, and it did not prohibit a Deputy Commissioner from adjudicating cases involving allegations of fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement under the Central Excise framework. The objection that only a Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could decide such matters was not accepted as a legal limitation on jurisdiction, and the challenge to the Deputy Commissioner's competence was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Deputy Commissioner lacked authority to adjudicate the case in view of the Board's circular, where allegations of fraud and wilful misstatement were involved.

Analysis: The circular relied upon by the Revenue was treated as an administrative instruction. It was held that, under the Central Excise Act and the Rules, there was no prohibition preventing the Deputy Commissioner from adjudicating such cases. The objection that only the Commissioner or Additional Commissioner could decide matters involving fraud, collusion or wilful misstatement was not accepted as a legal bar to jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The objection to the Deputy Commissioner's competence was rejected, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Administrative circulars cannot curtail adjudicatory jurisdiction conferred by the statute and rules unless the enactment itself creates such a bar.

---