https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43371 The proviso to Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act was treated as a controlled delegation allowing the Board to redistribute adjudicatory powers among excise officers, supported by the statutory scheme, so the challenge based on excessive delegation and Article 14 failed. The objection that an Assistant Collector could not be empowered beyond the monetary limits in Section 33, and the related penalty challenge, also failed because no penalty was ultimately imposed. A short-levy notice under Section 11A could not validly extend to an earlier period for which no test material established the taxable facts, so the demand for that anterior period lacked jurisdictional foundation and was quashed. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jun 2010 16:39:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43371 The proviso to Section 33 of the Central Excises and Salt Act was treated as a controlled delegation allowing the Board to redistribute adjudicatory powers among excise officers, supported by the statutory scheme, so the challenge based on excessive delegation and Article 14 failed. The objection that an Assistant Collector could not be empowered beyond the monetary limits in Section 33, and the related penalty challenge, also failed because no penalty was ultimately imposed. A short-levy notice under Section 11A could not validly extend to an earlier period for which no test material established the taxable facts, so the demand for that anterior period lacked jurisdictional foundation and was quashed. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43371