2000 (3) TMI 291 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Validity of the order directing provisional assessment.
2. Appealability of the order passed by the Assistant Collector.
3. Interpretation of Rule 173C by the Commissioner.

Issue 1: Validity of the order directing provisional assessment

The case involved the respondents, M/s. Mardia Chemicals Ltd., filing price lists during a specific period. The Assistant Collector directed provisional assessment due to missing documents and information for Part-II price lists. The Collector (Appeals) set aside the order, citing lack of written reasons for provisional assessment and failure to appraise factors leading to the decision. The Assistant Collector's decision was based on Rule 173C(3) and (5), allowing modification of value and resorting to provisional assessment if necessary. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector had fulfilled all requisites before the order and that the opinion to resort to provisional assessment was valid. The Tribunal concluded that the order was not appealable, as it was made in the exercise of a judicial function.

Issue 2: Appealability of the order passed by the Assistant Collector

The Tribunal deliberated on the appealability of the order passed by the Assistant Collector. It was noted that the order made in exercise of a judicial function would be appealable, but it must be done with circumspection. The Tribunal emphasized that the decision to issue a show cause notice cannot automatically be appealable, as it could lead to claims of denial of natural justice. In this case, the Tribunal concluded that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was not an appealable order, considering the circumstances and the legal provisions involved.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Rule 173C by the Commissioner

The Tribunal scrutinized the Commissioner's understanding of Rule 173C, highlighting that the Commissioner had misunderstood the propriety of the rule. The Commissioner, without valid reason, considered an amendment to Rule 173C and attempted to remedy the inconvenience caused to the assessee for waiting. However, the Tribunal pointed out that the delay was due to the assessee's failure to submit necessary documents. The Tribunal found no merit in the Commissioner's unnecessary observations and concluded that the appeal should be allowed, setting aside the impugned order.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, addressed issues related to the validity of orders, appealability, and the correct interpretation of legal provisions, providing a comprehensive analysis of the case involving M/s. Mardia Chemicals Ltd. The Tribunal's detailed examination of the law and the actions of the Assistant Collector and the Commissioner resulted in a decision in favor of the appellant, emphasizing compliance with rules and procedures in excise matters.