https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82397 The appellate forum for an adjudication order passed by an Additional Collector under the pre-amended regime depended on the date the order was signed and passed, not the date it was communicated. The majority treated communication as an administrative act and held that the amendment to the definition of "Collector" did not displace Tribunal jurisdiction where the order had already been validly signed before the change. The dissent considered the amendment retrospective and procedural, and would have sent pending matters to the Collector (Appeals). The stated ratio is that forum selection turns on the signing date of the adjudication order. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2011 17:48:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82397 The appellate forum for an adjudication order passed by an Additional Collector under the pre-amended regime depended on the date the order was signed and passed, not the date it was communicated. The majority treated communication as an administrative act and held that the amendment to the definition of "Collector" did not displace Tribunal jurisdiction where the order had already been validly signed before the change. The dissent considered the amendment retrospective and procedural, and would have sent pending matters to the Collector (Appeals). The stated ratio is that forum selection turns on the signing date of the adjudication order. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Dec 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82397