2003 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeals involving the legality of Modvat credit extension under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai stemmed from orders by the Additional Commissioner extending Modvat credit under Rule 57A/capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on various items. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reviewed these orders under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, finding them not legally correct. Consequently, the Commissioner directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal. However, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal held that such appeals were not maintainable as the direction by the Commissioner of Central Excise was deemed invalid under Section 35E(2) of the Act. This led to the Revenue filing appeals challenging this decision.

During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the Commissioner could direct any authorized officer to file an appeal under Section 35E(2) and cited relevant Tribunal decisions to support a broad interpretation of the provision. On the other hand, the respondents contended that appeals against the Additional Commissioner's order should only be filed by the Additional Commissioner under authorization from the Commissioner, not by the Assistant Commissioner. They relied on Tribunal decisions emphasizing the need for a specific authority to file such appeals.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal referred to various precedents, including the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut, which highlighted that only an adjudicating authority subordinate to the Commissioner could be directed to apply for appeal under Section 35E(2). The Tribunal also cited other cases supporting this interpretation, such as CCE, Aurangabad v. Flexoplast Abrasives (I) Ltd. and Baron International Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara. Notably, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's reliance on certain decisions like CCE v. Falcon Tyres Limited and Sun Export Corporation v. CC, as these did not consider the Supreme Court's ruling in Collector v. M.M. Rubber Co. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision that the appeals by the Revenue were not maintainable, in line with the precedents set by cases like Dhampur Sugar Mills and Malhotra Steel Products.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the Revenue, affirming the lower appellate authority's findings that the appeals were not maintainable due to the specific requirements under Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act.