9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts thereof which are chargeable to duty when cleared from the factory. 1.2 They avail credit of duty paid on inputs procured to manufacture the finished products. The inputs are common in use to both 'Tractors' which are cleared as Tractors and as parts are cleared on payment of duty. The appellants are not able to identify the inputs at the stage of their receipts as to the final destination of actual use in the appellants premises/manufacturing plant. They approached the jurisdictional officers vide letters dated 14-7-2004 with a procedure as declared by them in that letter vide letter dated 21-7-2004. They also informed about that availing Cenvat credit in respect of inputs received and an amount of 8% of the sale value of the Tractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - "...........Appellants were requested by a letter to comply with Cenvat Rules. Appellant has taken this letter as appealable order. We, therefore, respectfully plead that all the three pleas taken by the appellant be rejected". 2.2 We have pursued the letter dated 11-8-2004 from the Jt. Commissioner to the assessee issued with the approval of Commissioner, against which the present appeal is being vigorously pursued. This letter dated 11-8-2004 reads as - "In the said letter you have mentioned at Para no. l that you are availing Cenvat Credit on all inputs which has borne excise duty and which are used in the dutiable and exempted final products. In this connection your attention is invited to sub-rule (1) of Rule 6 of Cenvat Credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uts credit. Therefore, such deductions from the total price is not admissible." and find it cannot be considered as an order in adjudication, passed by a Commissioner. No doubt the directions of the Jt. Commissioner have the approval of the Commissioner yet it is not more than an order of a Commissioner at the best. 2.3 An appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 be entertained against an order of a Commissioner as an adjudicating authority. In this case the Commissioner has applied his mind but not acted as such. Commissioner disposal of a representation made even in term of an Allahabad High Court Order was not held to be a speaking order. Appellant was given liberty to approach jurisdictional Commissioner to pass on a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
