2005 (1) TMI 450 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Competency of the Superintendent to issue show-cause notices.
2. Consideration of SSI benefit and Modvat benefit in the final order.

Competency of the Superintendent to issue show-cause notices:
The appellants raised objections in their appeals before the Tribunal regarding the competency of the Superintendent to issue show-cause notices containing allegations of misdeclaration of tariff entries. The appellants argued that such notices should have been issued by the Commissioner. The Tribunal extensively discussed this issue, considering case law and ultimately held that the Superintendent was competent to issue the show-cause notices in question. The appellants later pointed out what they termed as "apparent mistakes" in the Tribunal's decision related to this issue. However, upon review, the Tribunal found no error in their original decision and declined to entertain the plea of error regarding the competency of the Superintendent to issue the show-cause notices.

Consideration of SSI benefit and Modvat benefit:
Another mistake highlighted by the party was the failure of the Tribunal to consider the appellants' alternative plea for SSI benefit and Modvat benefit while upholding the duty demand against them. The appellants had claimed these benefits in their replies to the show-cause notices and reiterated them in the appeals. After examining the records and hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the validity of this plea. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered an amendment to the final order to rectify this mistake. The amended order directed the Commissioner to re-quantify the demand of duty for a specific period after allowing the appellants the admissible SSI benefit and Modvat credit on eligible inputs, without charging any interest under the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Act.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai addressed two main issues in this judgment: the competency of the Superintendent to issue show-cause notices and the consideration of SSI benefit and Modvat benefit in the final order. The Tribunal reaffirmed the Superintendent's competency to issue the notices and rectified the omission of considering the appellants' alternative pleas for benefits by amending the final order to allow the benefits and directing the Commissioner to re-quantify the duty demand accordingly.