1993 (9) TMI 211 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against dismissal of Modvat credit claim by Collector of Central Excise, Competency of Assistant Collector to allow/disallow Modvat credit under Rule 57H, Jurisdiction of Superintendent of Central Excise, Validity of communication by Superintendent, Lack of appealable order from Assistant Collector.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras' order dismissing the appellant's appeal regarding Modvat credit claim rejection by the Superintendent of Central Excise. The appellant contended that as per Rule 57H, the Assistant Collector is the competent authority to decide on Modvat credit. The Superintendent's communication dated 18-5-1989 denying Modvat credit was deemed void as the Superintendent lacked jurisdiction under Rule 57H. The Tribunal found the Superintendent's communication non est in the eye of law and set aside the impugned order, directing the Assistant Collector to review the appellant's eligibility for Modvat credit in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 57H designates the Assistant Collector as the authority for allowing Modvat credit for inputs in stock before filing a declaration. Despite the appellant submitting necessary data to the Assistant Collector and receiving a personal hearing, the communication dated 18-5-1989 from the Superintendent did not constitute a valid order under Rule 57H. As the Assistant Collector did not issue a formal order, the communications from the Superintendent were deemed inadequate for appeal purposes. The Tribunal agreed that the lower authority failed to consider the legal perspective and set aside the order, emphasizing the necessity of a proper order from the Assistant Collector for appealability.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the exclusive authority of the Assistant Collector under Rule 57H for Modvat credit decisions. The Superintendent's actions were deemed void, and lacking jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of the impugned order. The Tribunal directed the Assistant Collector to reassess the appellant's eligibility for Modvat credit in adherence to the legal provisions, emphasizing the importance of a formal order from the competent authority for appealable decisions.