1. When this appeal came up for hearing on 22-9-1988, the appellants made a preliminary point that the proceedings before the Collector, who had passed the impugned order aforesaid, were without jurisdiction and that the three show cause notices issued to the appellants by the authorities were null and void. The Bench heard both sides on the preliminary point and reserved orders thereon. The following order recorded by the Bench disposes of the preliminary point of the appellants.

The facts, insofar as they are material for disposal of the preliminary point, are that during the course of a survey of the Industrial Estate, in which the appellant unit is located, Central Excise Officers noticed that the appellants were engaged in manufacture of forged brass shapes and Sections [falling under Item 26A (3) (ii) of the erstwhile Central Excise Tariff] without a Central Excise Licence and that they had been removing the said articles without payment of Central Excise duty and without following the statutory Central Excise requirements. After investigations, the authorities served the following three show cause notices on the appellants :

(1) Show cause notice dated 6-10-1985 for the period from 1-8-1984 to 30-4-1985.

(2) Show cause notice dated 21-11-1985 for the period from 1-5-1985 to 31-10-

1985.

(3) Show cause notice dated 20-3-1986 for the period from 1-11-1985 to 28-2-1986.

All the show cause notices were signed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and they asked the appellants to show cause to the Addl. Collector why duty should not be demanded from them under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and why penalty should not be imposed on them under Rule 173 Q read with Rules 9(2), 52A and 226 of the same Rules. The show cause notices, inter alia, alleged that the appellants had "suppressed the fact of production and clearance of the said goods falling under T.I 26A(3) (ii) by them with an intent to evade the payment of duty". The appellants replied to the show cause notices and denied the allegations. The Additional Collector held a hearing on 5-2-1986. In the meanwhile, Section 11A of the Act had been amended with effect from 27-12-1985 the effect of which was that case alleging suppression of fact etc. and invoking the extended time limit of 5 years for the demand of duty were to be adjudicated by the Collector. Accordingly, the proceedings pending before the Additional Collector were transferred to the Collector. The Collector held a fresh hearing on 25-9-1986. On adjudication, he held the appellants guilty and demanded duty of Rs. 1,72,017.16 but refrained from imposing any penalty. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the subject appeal before this Tribunal

2. The preliminary submission of the appellants is that the proceedings before the Collector were without jurisdiction and that three show cause notices were null and void for the following reasons:

(1) Amendment of Section 11A, which came into effect on 27-12-1985, authorised transfer of only those proceedings which were pending before the Asstt. Collector; since the proceedings in this case were pending before the Additional Collector, their transfer to the Collector was without jurisdiction.

(2) The amendment of 27-12-1985 further required that show cause notices invoking the proviso to Section 11A(1) for the extended time limit of 5 years had to be issued by the Collector; since in the present case the three show cause notices had been issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, fresh show cause notices ought to have been issued by the Collector after 27-12-1985. In saying so, the appellants rely on 1988 (34) ELT 442 (Gujarat) - M/s. Gujarat State Fertilizers Company Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors..

(3) The Collector was not empowered under the Act to have the proceedings transferred to himself from the Additional Collector.

3. Before dealing with the points made by the