2004 (10) TMI 414 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of annual capacity production for Central Excise duty.
2. Maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 1: Determination of Annual Capacity Production for Central Excise Duty

The Appellant, a manufacturer of hot-rolled products of non-alloy steel, changed the parameters of their rolling mills and duly informed the Department. They requested verification and redetermination of capacity after the changes. The Department provisionally fixed their annual capacity production from a certain date. The Appellant sought revision of the effective date for the revised capacity determination. The Deputy Commissioner communicated that the provisional capacity determination would be treated as final. The Appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the Deputy Commissioner was merely communicating the Commissioner's order. The Appellant argued that the final capacity determination order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner, not merely communicated. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Central Excise Act, noting that the appeal to the Tribunal lies against the decision or order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise or the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the order dated 7-3-01, fixing the annual capacity production, was an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner himself, making the appeal maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals).

Issue 2: Maintainability of the Appeal Before the Commissioner (Appeals)

The crucial point of contention was whether the order dated 7-3-01, determining the annual capacity production, was passed by the Deputy Commissioner or merely communicated by him on behalf of the Commissioner. The Appellant argued that it was a final capacity determination order by the Deputy Commissioner. The Tribunal examined the communication and concluded that it was indeed an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, not a mere communication of the Commissioner's decision. As per the Central Excise Act, the appeal lies with the Commissioner (Appeals) against orders passed by officers lower in rank than the Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Appellant was maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision on merit after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, clarifies the issues related to the determination of annual capacity production for Central Excise duty and the maintainability of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).