https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234207 The Court upheld the legality of Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, ruling that the power to specify jurisdiction can be delegated to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It clarified that jurisdiction is established through notification, not through promotion orders. The Court deemed the notices issued by the Officers as valid, dismissing the argument that their promotions needed publication in the official gazette. The necessity of a special audit under Section 14AA was left unresolved as it was not pivotal to the decision on the show cause notices, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petitions. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2013 09:01:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234207 The Court upheld the legality of Rule 3(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, ruling that the power to specify jurisdiction can be delegated to the Central Board of Excise and Customs. It clarified that jurisdiction is established through notification, not through promotion orders. The Court deemed the notices issued by the Officers as valid, dismissing the argument that their promotions needed publication in the official gazette. The necessity of a special audit under Section 14AA was left unresolved as it was not pivotal to the decision on the show cause notices, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petitions. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Nov 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234207