9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 785X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. These three appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the Order-in-Original dated 22-12-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise-II, Indore vide which he has disallowed the Modvat credit of the disputed amount for the period in question. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeals may briefly be stated as under :- The appellants were engaged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of which the Modvat credit was claimed did not satisfy the definition of inputs under Rule 57A of the Rules. The appellants, however, contested the correctness of these three notices along with other notices and one of the pleas taken up by them was that show cause notices were not issued by the Competent Authority for having been issued by the Range Superintendent who according to them, was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. The learned JDR has not disputed this contention of the Counsel that no findings regarding validity of the show cause notices issued by the Range Superintendent, as challenged by the appellants in their reply before the Commissioner, had been recorded. He has stated that the matter may be sent back to the Commissioner for recor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be invalid on the ground of incompetency of the officer issuing the same, no further proceedings could be taken legally. Therefore, this plea of the appellants should have been considered and adjudicated upon by the Commissioner. This omission/failure on his part has surely resulted in mis-carriage of justice. The impugned order passed by him deserves to be set aside on this short ground alone. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
