2008 (10) TMI 465 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Maintainability of the appeal against the Commissioner's order under Rule 16B of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
2. Interpretation of whether the goods in question are finished or semi-finished.
3. Validity of the Commissioner's decision to reject the renewal application for permission to move copper anode and copper cathode.

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Appeal
The Appellate Tribunal considered the preliminary objection raised by the ld. SDR regarding the maintainability of the appeal, arguing that the impugned order was administrative in nature. The Tribunal overruled this objection, asserting that the order by the Commissioner, issued under Rule 16B, was prejudicial to the manufacturer's statutory rights. The Tribunal deemed the order as quasi-judicial, as evidenced by the Commissioner's use of the term "ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL" and the adjudication of a show-cause notice. Consequently, the Tribunal found the appeal to be maintainable.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Goods as Finished or Semi-Finished
The Commissioner contended in the impugned order that the copper anode and copper cathode were finished goods, thereby claiming that Rule 16B did not apply. However, the Tribunal noted that these goods were intended for further processing into finished goods for home consumption or export. The Tribunal highlighted that the goods were previously treated as semi-finished for permission under Rule 16B without any noted changes in the manufacturing process or the law. Consequently, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's stance inconsistent and ruled that the goods should be considered semi-finished, attracting the provisions of Rule 16B.

Issue 3: Validity of Rejection of Renewal Application
The Tribunal observed that the appellants' application for renewal of permission to move copper anode and copper cathode for conversion was rejected by the Commissioner, leading to the appeal. Given the previous acceptance of these goods as semi-finished for processing into finished goods, the Tribunal found the rejection unjustified. After reviewing submissions from both parties, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of changes in the manufacturing process or the law to warrant a different treatment of the goods.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal, after addressing the maintainability of the appeal, interpreting the nature of the goods, and evaluating the rejection of the renewal application, ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the Commissioner's order and allowing the appeal.