https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122359 Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice for unpaid duty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the demand was a simple duty recovery arising from default under the compounded levy scheme. Board Circular No. 229/15/97-CX prescribed monetary limits for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and did not distinguish between demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demands under Rule 96ZO. As the amount exceeded the limits applicable to the Assistant Commissioner and even the Additional Commissioner, adjudication lay with the Commissioner. en-us Tue, 22 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 12:08:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122359 Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a show-cause notice for unpaid duty under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, because the demand was a simple duty recovery arising from default under the compounded levy scheme. Board Circular No. 229/15/97-CX prescribed monetary limits for adjudication by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and did not distinguish between demands under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demands under Rule 96ZO. As the amount exceeded the limits applicable to the Assistant Commissioner and even the Additional Commissioner, adjudication lay with the Commissioner. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122359