https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114305 The notification designating the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 named the Superintendent of Central Excise as the officer competent to issue and adjudicate show cause notices under Rule 57-I. No later notification was shown to have changed that position after the Board's circular dated 20-12-1988. The challenge based on want of jurisdiction failed because the notices in question were issued within the normal limitation period. The broader issue whether a different officer alone could act where the extended period applied was left open as it did not arise on the facts, and the recall application was rejected. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 May 2012 16:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114305 The notification designating the proper officer under the Central Excise Rules, 1944 named the Superintendent of Central Excise as the officer competent to issue and adjudicate show cause notices under Rule 57-I. No later notification was shown to have changed that position after the Board's circular dated 20-12-1988. The challenge based on want of jurisdiction failed because the notices in question were issued within the normal limitation period. The broader issue whether a different officer alone could act where the extended period applied was left open as it did not arise on the facts, and the recall application was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114305