2000 (3) TMI 292 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act.
2. Disposal of stay applications by the Superintendent instead of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Commissioner's orders demanding deposit without hearing the appeal.
4. Whether wires and cables are capital goods.
5. Whether components of machinery used to grind cement clinker and coals are capital goods.
6. Conduct of departmental officers and the importance of applying mind in decision-making.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed three appeals against orders denying Modvat credit. The Commissioner dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with Section 35F of the Act, leading to a challenge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh consideration.

2. The Tribunal found that the stay applications were disposed of by the Superintendent instead of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner's subsequent orders demanding deposit without hearing the appeal were deemed inappropriate.

3. In the appeal regarding wires and cables as capital goods, the Tribunal considered the larger bench decision and the essential use of the goods in the factory's operations. The deposit of duty was waived, and recovery stayed, emphasizing the prima facie establishment of a case by the appellant.

4. Regarding the components of machinery for grinding cement clinker and coals, the Tribunal analyzed the relevant Rule 57Q provisions. It was found that the items in question were covered under the specified categories of capital goods, leading to the waiver of duty demanded and stay of recovery.

5. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's orders for lacking objective consideration and ignoring relevant facts. The importance of applying mind in decision-making was highlighted, emphasizing the significance of hearing the appellant and dealing with the matter judiciously.

6. The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. The Commissioner (Appeals) was directed to dispose of the appeals on merits without insisting on any deposit, emphasizing the need for a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to be heard within a specified timeframe.