Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (6) TMI 361

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hir Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR, for the Respondent. [Order (Oral)]. - The facts giving rise to this appeal are, in brief, as under : 1.1 The Appellant, a manufacturer of rubber products had purchased some capital goods from M/s. Santosh Rubber Allied Industries on 22-7-05 for which the payment was made through cheque on 25-7-05. On 1-9-05, the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers visited the Appellant factory and detained the capital goods purchased by them from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Industries on the ground that Central Excise duties are pending recovery from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds. The detention order had been served under Section 11 of Central Excis .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ubber and M/s. Allied Inds., the same could not be detained for recovery of dues against the seller - M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds.; that detention of the goods purchased by the Appellant from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds. by Asstt. Commissioner in an appealable decision; that in this regard, he relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. v CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (85) RLT 153 (Del.) = 2008 (226) E.L.T. 468 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that if on consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is found that the order communicated by the impugned letter is such as to affect the rights of the party, the appeal would be maintainable; as the law does not countenance a situation where th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and that the same view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CCE, Indore reported in 2008 (232) E.L.T. 847 wherein the Tribunal held that Commissioner while deciding remission of duty, ought to have passed an order in appealable form and mere communication of his order by an officer below the rank of Commissioner may give reasonable belief that no appeal can be filed against such communication 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute to be decided in this case is as to whether the letter dt. 8-3-07 of Dy. Commissioner (Technical) communicating the decision to the Appellant regarding detention of the goods under Section 11 fo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r of Central Excise, appeal can be filed to Commissioner (Appeals). 4. In the case of Bhagwati Gases (supra), the Appellant in respect of their letter seeking permission for removal of used capital goods in respect of which Cenvat credit had been taken, on payment of duty at depreciated value, had received a communication from the Department that their request for applying depreciation on capital goods at the rates mentioned in earstwhile Rule 57-S(2) cannot be acceded to as there is no provision to provide depreciation under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Appellant accordingly was advised to remove the capital goods only on payment an amounting equal to the Cenvat credit originally taken on the capital goods. M/s. Bhagwati Gases .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds. have been detained for recovery of some dues against M/s. Santosh Rubber. Letter dt. 8-3-07 of the Dy. Commissioner (Tech.) does not disclose as to under which provisions the goods had been detained. Since the detention of the goods adversely affects the Appellant's rights, I hold that an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) would lie against the letter dt. 8-3-07 of Dy. Commissioner (Tech.) and the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order dismissing the same as non-maintainable is not correct. In view of this, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) for re-examining the issue on merits. The Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide this appeal at the earliest. The app .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates