https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43051 Rules 4 and 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were upheld as valid because administrative delegation of appointment and authorisation powers was necessary to make the excise machinery workable, and no excessive delegation or arbitrariness was shown. The definition of "Collector" was construed harmoniously with the statutory scheme, so an Additional Collector could exercise adjudicatory powers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including under Section 11A. On that basis, the jurisdictional challenge to the impugned orders failed and the constitutional objection to the rules was rejected. en-us Thu, 29 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:10:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43051 Rules 4 and 5 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were upheld as valid because administrative delegation of appointment and authorisation powers was necessary to make the excise machinery workable, and no excessive delegation or arbitrariness was shown. The definition of "Collector" was construed harmoniously with the statutory scheme, so an Additional Collector could exercise adjudicatory powers under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including under Section 11A. On that basis, the jurisdictional challenge to the impugned orders failed and the constitutional objection to the rules was rejected. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 29 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43051