https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47914 The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and adjudicate under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 post the 1992 amendment. The Court emphasized the need to clarify if the Additional Commissioner could handle cases involving fraud, collusion, or misstatements. The application for reference to the High Court under Section 35H was deemed appropriate, focusing on jurisdictional issues rather than excise duty rates or goods' valuation. The interpretation of CBEC circular No. 3/92-CX.6 was pivotal in determining the authority to issue notices post-amendment, leading to a referral to the High Court for further clarification. en-us Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:56:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47914 The Tribunal held that the Additional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and adjudicate under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 post the 1992 amendment. The Court emphasized the need to clarify if the Additional Commissioner could handle cases involving fraud, collusion, or misstatements. The application for reference to the High Court under Section 35H was deemed appropriate, focusing on jurisdictional issues rather than excise duty rates or goods' valuation. The interpretation of CBEC circular No. 3/92-CX.6 was pivotal in determining the authority to issue notices post-amendment, leading to a referral to the High Court for further clarification. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 19 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47914