M.N. CHANDURKAR, C.J.

In the judgment appealed against, the learned single Judge has held as follows :

1.The Director of Anti-evasion (Central Excise), New Delhi, had been properly invested with the powers of the Collector of Central Excise.

2.In view of the inter-Collectorate ramification and the huge estimated evasion of excise duty, the notice to show cause issued to the appellant is not open to challenge on the ground of overlapping of jurisdiction.

3.Having regard to the fact that there are a large number of branches of the Indian Tobacco Co., throughout India, it will not only be desirable, but also proper that one officer exercises the powers of the Collector.

4.The contents of the show cause notice do not amount to prejudging the alleged evasion and before a notice to show cause was issued, the authority was required to beprima faciesatisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the issue of a show cause notice.

5.The question as to whether there has been a clandestine removal so as to attract the provisions of Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules could be decided by the adjudicating authority.

6.The contentions which were advanced before the learned single Judge are