2015 (9) TMI 418

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... preferred by the appellant/assessee together with the miscellaneous application has been dismissed. 2. Mr. Dalal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the appeal raises the substantial questions of law, one of which was that the appellant specifically urged before the Tribunal that the show cause notice could have been issued only by the Commissioner of Central Excise or any delegate of the Commissioner duly and properly delegated the powers to adjudicate in terms of the Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, in this case, the notice has been issued by the Superintendent of the Central Excise. He lacks jurisdiction and, therefore, the order passed by the Adjudicating Authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is appeal. The Tribunal has dealt with both contentions. It found that throughout the adjudication the appellant did not question the jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority and rather acquiesced in it. A miscellaneous Application was moved so as to raise additional grounds of jurisdiction and for the first time before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that once this argument is based on certain factual aspects as well, though it allowed to raise it, proceeded to reject it by assigning the reasons, including of acquiescence. We do not find that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting such an argument and made belatedly. In the given facts and circumstances, when no supporting materials were produced to indicate as to how the Superintendent....