2003 (10) TMI 421 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of communication dated 15-5-1997 by the Asst. Commissioner as an appealable Order under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Marvel Overseas Ltd. raised the issue of whether the communication dated 15-5-1997 by the Asst. Commissioner could be considered an appealable Order under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Appellant, represented by Shri B.L. Narasimhan, argued that the clarification provided by the Asst. Commissioner regarding the exemption from payment of Additional duty of Excise for goods sold in the Domestic Tariff Area was incorrect. They contended that the Asst. Commissioner's letter constituted a decision or order under Section 35, as it involved a dispute and a conclusion was reached against them. On the other hand, Shri Virag Gupta, representing the Respondent, argued that the letter was merely a clarification sought by the Appellants and did not constitute a decision or order. The Tribunal, consisting of S/Shri V.K. Agrawal and P.G. Chacko, considered both arguments.

The Tribunal found merit in the contention put forth by the learned DR, Shri Virag Gupta, that the communication in question could not be categorized as an Order or decision appealable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal emphasized that the letter was a clarification provided by the department in response to a query raised by the Assessee. It was noted that not every communication from the Department could be treated as an Order, as the Department often offers opinions or clarifications on matters raised by Assessees. The Tribunal highlighted that seeking clarification or information from the department did not transform the response into an appealable Order. Acknowledging the importance of guidance provided by the Department to Assessees, the Tribunal concluded that the clarification issued by the Asst. Commissioner did not meet the criteria to be considered an appealable order under Section 35. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision that the clarification was not subject to appeal under the Act and suggested that if the Appellants desired, they could request the department to withdraw the protest under which the duty was deposited. Consequently, the appeal filed by M/s. Marvel Overseas Ltd. was rejected by the Tribunal.