9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (3) TMI 468 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
Transfer of unutilised credit from account RG 23 to RG 23A, Power of Assistant Commissioner to adjudicate on the transfer request, Legality of the impugned order-in-appeal. Transfer of Unutilised Credit from Account RG 23 to RG 23A: The appeal dealt with the transfer of unutilised Modvat credit from account RG 23 to RG 23A. The Revenue challenged the order-in-appeal where the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner allowing the transfer. The Tribunal had remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner for examination of the transfer request. The Assistant Commissioner, having the power due to an amendment in Rule 57H, was competent to decide on the transfer. The impugned order was upheld as no illegality was found, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed. Power of Assistant Commissioner to Adjudicate on the Transfer Request: The learned SDR contended that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the power to adjudicate on the transfer request made by the respondents. However, it was noted that the case was remanded by the Tribunal to the Assistant Commissioner for this specific purpose. The Assistant Commissioner was bound to decide the matter as per the Tribunal's direction, and no correction or modification of the remand order was sought by the Revenue. Additionally, Rule 57H had been amended, conferring the power to decide on the transfer request to the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner was competent to adjudicate on the transfer request, and the impugned order was upheld. Legality of the Impugned Order-in-Appeal: The Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the order-in-original of the Assistant Commissioner, allowing the transfer of unutilised Modvat credit. The impugned order was upheld as no illegality was pointed out regarding the decision to transfer the credit from account RG 23 to RG 23A. The appeal of the Revenue challenging the impugned order was dismissed, concluding the case in favor of the respondents.
|
