Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

36. It is true that a judicial power cannot ordinarily be delegated unless the law expressly or by clear implication permits it. Section 37A of the Act empowers the Central Government to direct by a notification, inter alia, that any power exercisable by a Collector of Central Excise under the Act may be exercisable by a Deputy Collector etc."

The aforesaid paragraphs are relevant for they clearly observe that in the CE Act there was no concept of territorial jurisdiction laid in the Statute itself and it was possible that more than one officer may have concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate the cases of a manufacturer or producer. The Board was empowered to assign cases to one of the competent authorities. There was no vested right in a manufacturer or producer to be assessed by a particular functionary. The Board when it would assign adjudication or investigation function to a particular officer, would act purely in administrative capacity and, therefore, the rule of audi alteram partem would not expressly or by necessary implication apply. The decision observed that there was no requirement in the statute or the law that this exercise of administrative power must be canalised or guided, as in the context of modern conditions, complexity of situations, etc., it was impossible for the Legislature to envisage in detail every possible variety of situations. The Court held that the investing of power on Director (Audit) in the said case with All-India jurisdiction was convenient and expedient in public interest both for the Revenue and the assessee as this would ensure that the proceedings were held at one place and not spread over other places. Of course, the Court could scrutinise exercise of power if it was colourable or for extraneous consideration. Distinction between existence of power, and exercise of power was emphasised.