2012 (6) TMI 249 - AT - Central Excise

Refusal to approve the proposal for issue of CT-1 certificates in a lot of 25, on the ground that appellant failed to give quantity, description and value of goods, while making application - Held that - Basically the Commissioner is requiring the appellants to indicate the quantity, description and value in each of the CT-1 certificates before approving the lot of 25 to be issued by the Superintendent. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to allow the appellants to apply to Commissioner with necessary details afresh - Matter remanded back.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction to file appeal - Tribunal or Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Approval for issue of CT-1 certificates in a lot of 25 sheets
3. Requirement of quantity, description, and value of goods for CT-1 certificates

Analysis:
1. The issue before the Tribunal was to determine the correct forum for filing an appeal - whether it should be before the Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that since the letter refusing the request for CT-1 certificates was issued with the approval of the Commissioner, the appeal should be filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal exercised its powers under Rule 41 of CESTAT Procedure Rules, 1982, to consider the appeal without requiring a fresh filing.

2. The Commissioner had refused to approve the request for CT-1 certificates in a lot of 25 sheets due to the appellant's failure to provide details of the goods to be procured, such as quantity, description, and value. The Tribunal noted that the requirement to specify these details was not explicitly mentioned in the relevant manual or instructions. The appellant expressed willingness to comply with this requirement and agreed to submit a fresh application with the necessary details to the Commissioner. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration based on the fresh application to be submitted by the appellant.

3. The Tribunal's decision allowed the appellant to reapply for CT-1 certificates with the required details to the Commissioner of Central Excise. By remanding the matter for a fresh application, the Tribunal ensured that the appellant had the opportunity to fulfill the Commissioner's conditions for issuing the certificates. The appeal was disposed of based on these terms, emphasizing the importance of complying with the specified requirements for obtaining CT-1 certificates.