2004 (4) TMI 452 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against duty remission rejection communicated by Superintendent to manufacturer - Jurisdiction of the decision - Maintainability of the appeal by the appellant not being the manufacturer.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Gepach International against the letter issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Peenya Range, Bangalore, to M/s. Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., regarding the duty remission application for destruction of time-expired excisable goods. The appellant contended that the decision communicated by the Superintendent lacked jurisdiction, citing the requirement for the Commissioner to dispose of such applications under Rule 49 with a written order, as established in the Tribunal's decision in Rosa Sugar Works v. CCE. The appellant emphasized that Rule 49(1A) allows manufacturers to apply for duty remission on goods unfit for consumption or marketing, without specifying the timing of such unfitness. The appellant referenced cases like Triveni Engg. & Ind. Ltd., ITC Ltd. v. CCE, and Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. to support the argument that decisions on remission of duty are quasi-judicial and require adherence to natural justice principles.

The Revenue, represented by Shri M.K. Madhyastha, argued that the appeal was not maintainable as it was against a communication from the Superintendent to M/s. Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., not directly involving the appellant. The Revenue contended that the communication was a directive to the manufacturer to pay duty, not to the appellant.

Upon evaluating the submissions, the Tribunal found that the communication from the Superintendent was directed to M/s. Karnataka Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the manufacturer of the goods, regarding duty remission. Rule 49(1A) and Rule 21 apply to manufacturers, and the appellant, M/s. Gepach International, was neither the manufacturer nor authorized by the manufacturer to appeal. Since the manufacturer did not file an appeal, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal by the appellant was not maintainable. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal on the grounds of lack of maintainability due to the appellant's indirect involvement in the communication regarding duty remission issued to the manufacturer.