9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (1) TMI 926X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Commissioner has shown 15-7-1999 as the date of communication of the copy of the order. Ld. Counsel then invites attention to the Order-in-Review passed by the Commissioner authorising the Dy. Commissioner for filing of appeal, (vide at pages 8 to 10 of the Appeal Papers). The date mentioned below the signature of the Commissioner in the said Order-in-Review is 13-7-1999 . Ld. Counsel states that there is thus a patent error in the date mentioned against Sl. No. 3 of Form E.A. 3 filed by the Commissioner since it is quite obvious that the Commissioner could not have passed his Order-in-Review on 13-7-1999 if he had received the Order to be reviewed only on 15-7-1999. The resultant order authorising the Dy. Commissioner to file the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EA 3 Form. Ld. Advocate submits that this was not the correct date of receipt of the order by the Commissioner as would be evident from the order of authorisation signed by him two days prior to the date shown against Sl. No. 3 in the EA. 3 Form. 4. On the merits of the appeal also, Ld. Counsel contends that the Appeal filed by the Dy. Commissioner travels much beyond the authorisation given to him by the Commissioner for filing the appeal. He invites attention to page 8 of the Appeal Papers in which the Commissioner has observed, "I have carefully gone through the impugned Order-in-Appeal dt. 19-4-1999 and I am of the opinion that the operation of the order which allows credit on electrical switches and electronic flickering unit is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attention to serial No. 4 of the said Annexure, which mentioned electronic switches as one of the 18 items figuring therein. The amount shown against electronic switch is only Rs. 1,017.00. Inasmuch as the Dy. Commissioner has filed Appeal against Modvat claims involving Rs. 58,578/-, (which included 17 other items other than electrical switches), the appeal filed by the Dy. Commissioner has gone beyond the authorisation given to him by the Commissioner. Ld. Counsel also contended that it would be clear from the above that there was no authorisation for filing appeals against any of the other items, the modvat credit relating to which have been quantified as Rs. 1,11,900.50 and Rs.19,096.25. Ld. Counsel therefore submits that the present ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the Appeal also, I find that the objection raised by Counsel for Respondents is valid. The authorisation given by the Commissioner for filing the appeal was clearly restricted to two items viz., electrical switches and electronic flicker unit. The modvat credit claimed on these two items is Rs. 72/- and Rs. 1,1017/- respectively whereas in the Appeal filed by the Dy. Commissioner availment of modvat credit by the Respondents amounting to Rs. 19,096/-, Rs. 95,829/-, Rs. 58,578/- and Rs. 1,11,900.50 have been mentioned. This shows that the Dy. Commissioner who filed the Appeal has far exceeded the authorisation given to him by the Commissioner in the Order-in-Review dt. 13-7-1999. Non-application of mind at every level is writ large on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
