https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338676 Demand of central excise duty and penalty was held to be without jurisdiction where the adjudicating authority was not the proper officer for the assessee. The notice and confirmation of demand under section 11A had to be issued by the assessing authority having territorial and functional jurisdiction over the registered assessee. The principle of comity of courts was found inapplicable, because it does not displace the authority of the officer legally empowered to assess and demand duty. The first officer to act does not acquire jurisdiction by priority. The demand and penalty were set aside. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 07 Feb 2018 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338676 Demand of central excise duty and penalty was held to be without jurisdiction where the adjudicating authority was not the proper officer for the assessee. The notice and confirmation of demand under section 11A had to be issued by the assessing authority having territorial and functional jurisdiction over the registered assessee. The principle of comity of courts was found inapplicable, because it does not displace the authority of the officer legally empowered to assess and demand duty. The first officer to act does not acquire jurisdiction by priority. The demand and penalty were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338676