9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (10) TMI 440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducts. They are availing the credit of duty taken on the inputs and capital goods under Modvat scheme. The department alleged that in respect of certain inputs and capital goods Modvat credit was not admissible to the respondents. The respondents represented before the Asst. Commissioner who disallowed the Modvat credit on certain items and ordered for recovery thereof under Rule 57-I for inputs and under Rule 57U for capital goods. Being aggrieved by this order of the Asst. Commissioner, the respondents filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the cases decided by the Asst. Commissioner were beyond his competence as Modvat credit involved in these cases was above Rs. 50,000/-. Against this orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ler, broker or commission agent, or manufacturer, or intended grower, curer, wholesale dealer, broker, commission agent or manufacturer are situated. In the instant case the factory of the respondents falls within the jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner, Kota, therefore, under Rule 2(14), the Asst. Commissioner, Kota is the proper officer to decide the notices issued for the recovery of irregular credit taken under Rule 57-I for inputs and under Rule 57U for capital goods. 4. Rule 4 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that the CBEC shall appoint such person as it thinks fit to be a central excise officer, or to exercise all, or any of the powers conferred by the Central Excise Rules, 1944 on such officer. 5. Rule 5 provided th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... careful consideration of the submissions made and explanation furnished in the reference application, we find that there are conflicting decisions of the Tribunal. We, therefore hold that a point of law arises. In the circumstances, we allow the reference application. 10. We have also examined the ROM application. We find that there is no mistake in the order of the Tribunal and, therefore ROM application is rejected. 11. The matter is, therefore referred to the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur for its considered view on the question of the Tribunal s observations regarding Board s Circular No. 3/92 dated 15-5-1992 amending the powers of adjudication with regard to the proviso to Section 11A in cases of fraud, suppression, etc. w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
