2005 (11) TMI 132 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against denial of acknowledgement of declaration under Rule 57G of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The appeal filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) was based on the contention that communication of rejection/non-acknowledgement of a declaration filed under Rule 57G of the Central Excise was an essential requirement and an appealable order. The Revenue argued that since the Respondent did not appeal against the denial of acknowledgement of declaration, the appeal allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) did not hold any legal force. The Revenue relied on a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Bombay to support their argument.

2. On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the communication sent by the Dy. Assistant Commissioner was not an appealable order under Rule 57T(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Respondent's Consultant argued that the communication did not specify the party against whom the appeal could be filed, did not involve a show cause notice, and was merely a simple communication. The Respondent cited various decisions, including Reliance Industries Ltd. v. C.C.E., Steel City Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., and Grasim Industries v. C.C.E., to support their position.

3. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the citation referred to by the Revenue did not apply to the case at hand. The Tribunal emphasized that the communication from the Deputy Commissioner denying credit was not an adjudication order and did not constitute an appealable order. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had already settled the matter regarding the declaration of goods in favor of the Respondent in a previous order. The Tribunal cited a previous order by CESTAT in favor of the Respondents, emphasizing that minor procedural irregularities could not be the basis for denying the benefit of MODVAT Credit. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue, as the grounds given by the Commissioner were deemed untenable. The Tribunal disposed of both appeals filed by the Revenue, upholding the decision in favor of the Respondent.

(Order dictated in open Court.)