https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81770 Statutory adjudication power under the Central Excise Act and Rules remained with the Collector despite later administrative allocation of work, because internal distribution instructions could not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute; the jurisdiction objection was rejected. A signed adjudication document intended only as a draft did not become a final enforceable order merely on communication, because finality required completion of the fair copy or final order and formal communication; the communicated order was therefore treated as a draft. On that basis, a prima facie challenge to the validity of the communicated order was made out and the impugned order was stayed. en-us Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81770 Statutory adjudication power under the Central Excise Act and Rules remained with the Collector despite later administrative allocation of work, because internal distribution instructions could not curtail jurisdiction conferred by statute; the jurisdiction objection was rejected. A signed adjudication document intended only as a draft did not become a final enforceable order merely on communication, because finality required completion of the fair copy or final order and formal communication; the communicated order was therefore treated as a draft. On that basis, a prima facie challenge to the validity of the communicated order was made out and the impugned order was stayed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81770