1991 (2) TMI 109 - AT - Central Excise

Maintainability of appeal against letters conveying a decision - Any decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority is appealable - Demand raised without hearing the party a nullity - Case remanded to the Assistant Collector for de novo adjudication

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-appeal dismissing appeal as a nullity against a letter from Superintendent of Central Excise directing duty deposit. Maintainability of appeal against a letter. Disposal of appeal based on limited grounds. Premature demand for duty deposit. Adjudication of demands pending since 1983. Applicability of Tribunal decisions on appeal maintainability.

Analysis:
The judgment in question involves a challenge by M/s. Indian Explosives Ltd. against an order-in-appeal dismissing their appeal as a nullity. The Collector of Central Excise had dismissed the appeal, stating that the letter from the Superintendent directing duty deposit cannot be treated as an appealable order under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The appellants contended that they had a strong case on merits regarding proforma credit, citing judicial decisions, including one from the Supreme Court. The issue of maintainability of appeal against a decision communicated by a letter was debated, with the Department arguing that the Superintendent's letter was not appealable. The Tribunal noted the stalemate in the case and the pending show cause notice since 1983, questioning the premature nature of the duty deposit demand by the Superintendent.

The Tribunal scrutinized the correspondence and orders involved, highlighting the Assistant Collector's letter of 1981 regarding proforma credit and the subsequent show cause notice of 1983, which remained undisposed of. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a formal adjudication of demands and the need for a speaking order. The conflicting Tribunal decisions on appeal maintainability against letters conveying decisions were discussed, with the Tribunal clarifying that an appeal can be filed against any decision or order under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Tribunal found that since an appeal had been filed by the appellants, the Collector (Appeals) should have considered the appeal on merits, especially since no hearing was granted before dismissing it as a nullity.

In its final decision, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for proper adjudication of the pending notice from 1983. The Tribunal directed the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter within three months and emphasized that the enforcement of the Bank Guarantee provided by the appellants would depend on the decision in the adjudication of the demand matter. The Tribunal also advised the appellants to make suitable submissions before the High Court regarding the pending Writ Petition to facilitate the adjudication process. The judgment focused on ensuring a fair and thorough adjudication process for the unresolved demands and upheld the right of the appellants to a proper hearing and decision on the merits of their case.