https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89538 Board Circular No. 3/92-CX6 was treated as governing adjudicatory competence in central excise matters involving recovery of wrongly taken and utilised Modvat credit, because such recovery is in substance recovery of duty. The circular was read as extending beyond Section 11A proceedings to allied questions of confiscation and penalty, and Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was noted as supporting the allocation of adjudicatory powers within the departmental hierarchy. On that basis, the Assistant Commissioner was not incompetent to pass the orders-in-original, and the remand by the lower appellate authority was held to be erroneous. en-us Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:40:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89538 Board Circular No. 3/92-CX6 was treated as governing adjudicatory competence in central excise matters involving recovery of wrongly taken and utilised Modvat credit, because such recovery is in substance recovery of duty. The circular was read as extending beyond Section 11A proceedings to allied questions of confiscation and penalty, and Section 33 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was noted as supporting the allocation of adjudicatory powers within the departmental hierarchy. On that basis, the Assistant Commissioner was not incompetent to pass the orders-in-original, and the remand by the lower appellate authority was held to be erroneous. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89538