9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the appeal came up for hearing. He referred to the submissions contained in their appeal memorandum. He stressed the fact that their original application for availing Modvat credit had been only partially allowed and what was not allowed was without reference to them by grant of personal hearing. As they were not heard in the matter and as no speaking formal adjudication order was passed by the Assistant Collector they could not file an appeal against the Assistant Collector s letter. They, however, took up the matter with the department requesting for reconsideration of the matter and grant of personal hearing. They were informed by the Superintendent vide his letter dated 26-10-1989 that the order dated 6-10-1986 was a speaking order an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rused the records. I find that the appellants had taken up the matter with the Assistant Collector on receipt of the letter dated 6-10-1986 claiming that they were rightly eligible for deemed credit benefit for the stocks held by them on 1-3-1986 and requesting for review of the order. In case that was not agreed to an appealable order was requested for. Only on 10-6-1988 they were informed by the Superintendent (Technical) of the Divisional Office that there was no scope to review the case at the level of Assistant Collector and they could approach the appellate authority for necessary orders. On this they again wrote to the Assistant Collector on 21-6-1989 that an appealable order can be passed only by complying with the principles of nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... different in the sense that the said order was only a letter. While allowing their application partly, it was communicated to them that permission under Rule 57H cannot be granted for the period prior to the date of acknowledgement. Such a communication does not constitute an order which could be appealed against. It was held by the Special Bench D of the Tribunal in Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1169 that a letter of the Deputy Collector (that was relevant in the particular case) could not be considered as an order of adjudication and the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Appellate Collector with appropriate direction for disposal. Going by the ratio of the said dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
