2000 (1) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding the effective date of change in parameters for installed machinery.
2. Interpretation of rules regarding the approval process for changes in machinery capacity.
3. Appealability of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses a dispute concerning the effective date of a change in machinery parameters. The petitioner had forwarded an intimation about the proposed change in machinery capacity but contended that as the respondent did not grant permission within thirty days, the approval should be deemed to have been granted. The petitioner argued that the change should be deemed to have come into force after one month from the date of intimation. However, the Rules governing the matter required the manufacturer to obtain written approval from the Commissioner before making such changes. The judgment highlighted that the Rules did not imply automatic approval if no decision was made within the specified period, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining prior approval before implementing changes.

2. The judgment delves into the interpretation of rules concerning the approval process for changes in machinery capacity. It was argued that the decision challenged in the case was made by the Assistant Commissioner, indicating that it was an appealable order under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the order was not appealable as it was passed by the Commissioner. However, the judgment clarified that the order was issued by the Assistant Commissioner, making it subject to appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The petitioner was advised to approach the appellate forum instead of directly seeking recourse in the High Court.

3. The judgment also noted the petitioner's reference to two cases where the same authority had allowed changes to take effect after 30 days from the application date. The court highlighted that the appellate authority should consider these precedents while deciding the appeal. Ultimately, the court concluded that in light of the order passed in a Special Civil Application, the Civil Application in question did not survive and was rejected.