2004 (10) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of appeal against denial of substantial benefit by Customs Authorities.

Analysis:
The appellant argued that an appeal is maintainable if substantial benefit under the law is denied by Customs Authorities based on settled legal principles. Citing precedents like WIMCO Limited v. Collector of Central Excise and IOL Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, the appellant contended that denial of benefits by Customs Authorities can be challenged through an appeal. The appellant requested the appeal to be decided on merits or alternatively remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further consideration.

The Revenue, represented by the J.D.R., supported the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the case.

The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal primarily on the grounds that it was not maintainable, referring to two letters issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Jamshedpur. These letters, dated 3-3-2001 and 4-4-2001, rejected the declaration regarding Capital Goods - 'SOFTWARE-V of Chapter sub-heading No. 8524.40. The appellant was directed to file an appeal against this decision. The appellant argued that these letters determined the rights of the parties, giving the appellant a statutory right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Section 35 of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the letters from the Deputy Commissioner indeed determined the rights of the parties, and the appellant had a statutory right to appeal against the decision. Citing a similar case involving Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a decision in accordance with the law. The judgment was pronounced in open court by Shri M.P. Bohra, J.