9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (8) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only on 26/05/1995, hence demand for interest for the period prior to that is not tenable - attachment order, is appealable order and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have entertained the appeal on merits and ought not to have dismissed the appeal against the attachment order as non-maintainable X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , stating that the case relates to 1990 during which period there was no provision for recovery of interest in the Central Excise Act (such provision was inserted only on 26/05/1995) and hence demand of interest being untenable, may be withdrawn. This was followed by a reminder dated 19/09/2005. On 18/11/2005 the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise authorized the Superintendent Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal as non-maintainable; holding that the letter of 15/12/2006 was only in the nature of an intimation of a proposed action rather than an order or decision per se and holding that the cause of action is the demand for payment of interest and that the appellants required to agitate on that point. The lower appellate authority has also referred to the fact that the issue of appealable order on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As regards the attachment order, in the light of the Tribunal's order in the case of Rinkle Floral Creations Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur 2003 (151) ELT 708 such order is appealable and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have entertained the appeal on merits and ought not to have dismissed the appeal against the attachment order as non-maintainable. I, therefore, set aside the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
