2000 (3) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Re-hearing of appeals due to unsigned order
- Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in changing orders
- Jurisdiction of notice for recovering money credit under rule 57-I
- Recovery of money credit under rule 57P
- Maintainability of notices under rule 57-I and section 11A

Re-hearing of appeals due to unsigned order:
The advocate for the appellants sought re-hearing of the appeals citing the Supreme Court judgment in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and the Allahabad High Court judgment in Vijay Kumar Kohli & Ors. v. Life Insurance Corporation of India. He argued that the order dictated in court should not be changed unless exceptional circumstances, such as a subsequent judgment affecting the outcome, exist. The Supreme Court's differing views in CCE v. Safari Industries and CCE v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission were highlighted to show that the notices for duty demand were without jurisdiction. The Tribunal agreed that re-hearing was justified as the order had not been signed or acted upon.

Applicability of Supreme Court judgments in changing orders:
The departmental representative contended that the notices for money credit recovery were issued under rule 57-I, not section 11A, making the Supreme Court's judgment in CCE v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission irrelevant. The Tribunal accepted this argument, noting the absence of a provision in rule 57-I similar to section 11A. However, during the hearing, it was raised that money credit recovery should be under rule 57P, not rule 57-I or section 11A. The Tribunal held that as the matter was not raised earlier, it could still consider it, leading to a different outcome.

Jurisdiction of notice for recovering money credit under rule 57-I:
The Tribunal rejected the department's argument that money credit taken under rule 57K could be recovered by invoking rule 57-I. It clarified that rule 57-I pertains to modvat credit on inputs, not credit on duty paid on capital goods under rule 57Q. The decision in CCE v. Rasoi Ltd. was deemed irrelevant as it did not apply to the recovery of money credit under rule 57K. The Tribunal concluded that neither rule 57-I nor section 11A could be used to recover money credit under rule 57K.

Recovery of money credit under rule 57P:
The appellants argued that the notices were not maintainable as the proposal to recover money credit was not under rule 57P, which specifically allows for such recovery. They contended that rule 57-I and section 11A were inapplicable to the case. The Tribunal agreed that the notices were not maintainable under rule 57-I and section 11A, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeals.