2004 (2) TMI 451 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of a letter dated 28-2-2003 addressed to M/s. Dabur India Ltd. regarding the classification of Tamarind extract for duty payment.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the question of whether a letter dated 28-2-2003 addressed to M/s. Dabur India Ltd. constituted an appealable order. The Revenue contended that the Tamarind extract manufactured by M/s. Dabur India Ltd. was classified under Chapter 20 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, while the Department considered it to be classifiable under sub-heading 1301.10 of the Tariff. The Joint Commissioner, through the letter dated 28-2-2003, requested M/s. Dabur India Ltd. to calculate and deposit the duty for a specific period. The Commissioner (Appeals) treated this letter as an appealable order and ruled in favor of M/s. Dabur India Ltd., stating that the duty cannot be demanded without issuing a show cause notice or granting a personal hearing.

The Revenue argued that the letter dated 28-2-2003 was merely a communication conveying the Audit Party's observation and did not quantify any duty. Therefore, they contended that the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to pass an order on the merits. On the other hand, M/s. Dabur India Ltd.'s representative emphasized that they had filed a representation with the Department, which had not been considered yet. They maintained that the classification cannot be altered, and duty cannot be demanded without following due process, including issuing a show cause notice and passing a speaking order.

After considering the submissions from both sides, the Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's argument that the communication dated 28-2-2003 was not an appealable order but a request for duty payment under a different classification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal directed the Revenue to promptly address the representation submitted by M/s. Dabur India Ltd. and, if necessary, provide them with an opportunity for a hearing. This decision clarifies the distinction between a mere communication and an appealable order, emphasizing the importance of following due process in matters of duty classification and demand.