2002 (3) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of Order-in-Appeal No. 661/2001-C.E. dated 16-10-2001.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of Order-in-Appeal No. 661/2001-C.E. dated 16-10-2001

The WR Bench of CEGAT had earlier disposed off an appeal against an Order-in-Appeal, criticizing the Commissioner (Appeals) for not providing a reasonable opportunity to the appellant before concluding and for incorrectly stating that the appeal was already pending elsewhere. The WR Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, directing the Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and adjudicate upon the appeal properly. Subsequently, Order-in-Appeal No. 661/2001-C.E. dated 16-10-2001 was issued, which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal.

Upon considering submissions, the Commissioner (Appeals) in Order No. 661/2001-C.E. dismissed the appeal as unsustainable, citing that appeals against the Commissioner (Appeals) order should be before a higher appellate authority. The appellants contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) misinterpreted a previous CEGAT decision, emphasizing that the facts in their case were different from the precedent. They argued that the demand letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise was an independent decision, not a result of the pending appeal. The Supreme Court's decision in U.O.I. v. M/s. Madhumillan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. highlighted the necessity of following statutory procedures, emphasizing the issuance of show cause notices before determining amounts. The appellants also argued that the assessments were final and not provisional, thus barred by limitation.

The Tribunal found that the Superintendent's letter demanding duty was not in line with legal requirements, as it should have been a regular demand under Section 11A. The Tribunal also noted that the assessments were not provisional and were final, indicating that the Superintendent's actions were beyond jurisdiction. The orders of the Karnataka High Court and the Commissioner (Appeals) did not permit further quantification of demand, only determining the classification of BSM under CETA 1985. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeal and disposing of the Misc. Application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the Commissioner (Appeals) order and the Superintendent's actions, leading to a decision to set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal based on the legal principles and precedents discussed during the analysis.