Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Cce vs Lloyds Metals And Engg. Ltd. And Ors. on 15 July, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(111)ECR748(TRI.-MUMBAI)
ORDER Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. The above appeals arising out of separate orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) involve a common issue and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In all these cases orders were passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur extending the benefit of Modvat credit under Rule 57A/capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on different items. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur reviewed such orders in terms of Section 35E(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, in order to satisfy himself as to the legality, propriety and correctness of the said order and found that the order in adjudication is not legal proper and correct; and therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application in proper form with the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal in terms of Sub-section (4) of the Section 35E of the Act. Appeals were preferred before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bhopal who held that the appeals filed by the department were not maintainable as direction of the Commissioner of Central Excise to the Assistant Commissioner to file appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the Additional Commissioner's order was not legal and valid under Section 35E(2) of the Act. Hence these appeals by the Revenue.
3. I have heard Shri A. Shukla, learned SDR for the Revenue and the representatives of the respondents as mentioned above.
4. Section 35(E) of the Act reads as under:
The Commissioner of Central Excise may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to thee Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise in his order.
5. According to the Revenue the expression "such authority" used above is also to be qualified by the clause "as may be specified by the Commissioner of Central Excise in his order." Reference is also made to Section 35E(4) which provides that an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals) can be made by the adjudicating authority or the authorised officer and the submission of the Revenue is that the mention of authorised officer in addition to adjudicating authority was necessitated because of the possibility of the Commissioner authorising another officer subordinate to him, other than the adjudicating officer, to file an appeal under Section 35E(2), Reliance is also placed by the learned SDR on the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Falcon Tyres Limited wherein the Tribunal held that Section 35E(2) requires a broad interpretation, reading it in harmony with Section 35E(4) of the Act and that the Collector can issue direction to the adjudicating officer, or any other officer, and the officer directed by the Collector or an officer authorised by the latter can file the application; and Sun Export Corporation v. CC wherein it was held that a harmonious construction of the provisions of two Sub-sections 129D(2) and 129D(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 would indicate that in cases where the adjudicating authority is unavailable for being directed, it is reasonable to conclude that the direction can be fulfilled by another Customs Officer authorised by the Collector, although he may not be the officer who adjudicated the case. It is therefore prayed by the learned SDR that the impugned order may be set aside and the matter be remanded for de novo consideration on merits.
6. The prayer is opposed by the respondents who relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut (which has been followed by the lower appellate authority) and CCE, Aurangabad v. Flexoplast Abrasives (I) Ltd. 2003 (55) RLT 233 in support of their contention that appeal against Additional Commissioner's order should have been filed only by the Additional Commissioner under authorisation from the Commissioner, and not by the Assistant Commissioner under authorisation from the Commissioner.
7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. I note that in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut the Tribunal has held that:
Section 35E(2) contemplates only one authority whose orders or decisions can be called for and examined by the Collector and that authority can be only an adjudicating authority subordinate to him. After examination of the record, the Collector has to satisfy himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order. Thereafter he has to direct 'such authority' to apply to the Collector for determination of such points arising out of the decision or the order as may be satisfied. There is no provision under that sub-section for giving the direction to any other authority to make an application to the Collector (Appeals).
8. In the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Flexoplast Abrasives (I) Ltd. cited supra the bench followed the earlier decision in the case of Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Indore which in turn has relied upon the Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut decision cited supra.
9. The case of Baron International Ltd. v. CCE, Vadodara also notes the Dhampur Sugar Mills v. CCE, Meerut decision in which the expression "such authority" has been interpreted as an officer of the same level as the one who had passed the adjudication order (in Baron International's case the point raised by the appellants was that the very Commissioner who passed the adjudication order must be the person filing the application, which objection was overruled by the bench.)
10. In the case of Malhotra Steel Products v. CCE the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Commissioner; the Commissioner had directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an application before the Commissioner (Appeals); the Tribunal held that the proceeding is defective following the Judgment in the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills case cited supra.
11. The decision in the case of CCB v. Falcon Tyres Limited and Sun Export Corporation v. CC relied upon by the learned SDR do not advance the case of the Revenue as neither of these decisions had noted the Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector v. M.M. Rubber Co. while in the Dhampur Sugar Mills decision the above Supreme Court Judgment has been relied upon.
12. Following the ratio of the Tribunal's order in the cases of Dhampur Sugar Mills and Malhotra Steel Products I uphold the findings of the lower appellate authority that the appeals filed before him by the department were not maintainable and reject these appeal.
Sd/-
(Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram) Member (J) Annexure ______________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ______________________________________________________________________________
1. E/1218 Loyds E/CO- 2,32,121/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel 129/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Industries -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
______________________________________________________________________________
2. E/1219 Loyds E/CO- 27,374/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel 125/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Industries -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________
3. E/1220 Nagpur 4,661/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Foundry rejected the departmental Mum (P) Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
_______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________
4. E/1221 Lloyed E/CO- 9,45,082/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Metal & 130/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Engineeri -Mum appeal filed on the ground ng Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q ___________________________________________________________________________________
5. E/1222 Plasto E/CO- 2,61,154/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Pack (I) 133/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
Classification of PVC profile under head 8418.90 ___________________________________________________________________________________
6. E/1223 Sunflag 1,07,249/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
7. E/1228 Mahara- 4,32,400/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- shtra - rejected the departmental Mum Electrosm appeal filed on the ground elt Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
______________________________________________________________________________________
8. E/1229 Lloyeds E/CO- 7,26,204/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Metal & 131/ - rejected the departmental Mum Engineer- 2001- (confirmed appeal filed on the ground ing Ltd. Mum and paid) of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q _______________________________________________________________________________________
9. E/1230 Vasant 5,93,893/ Commissioner (A) has _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ /2001- Sahkari - rejected the departmental Mum Sakhar appeal filed on the ground Karkhana of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
Depreciation claimed in respect of goods on which Modvat credit availed under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
10. E/1231 Lloyds E/CO- 3,02,616/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel 126/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Industries -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
11. E/1232 Lloyds E/CO- 13,852/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Metals & 132/2001 rejected the departmental Mum Engineeri -Mum appeal filed on the ground ng Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on electrical goods, transformer under Rule 57Q.
____________________________________________________________________________________
12. E/1234 Pentium 56,138/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Computer rejected the departmental Mum Point appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
Excisable goods removed clandestinely.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
13. E/1236 Lloyds 24,558/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel rejected the departmental Mum Industries appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on electrical goods under ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ Rule 57Q.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
14. E/1237 Sunrise 3,16,616/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel - rejected the departmental Mum Industries appeal filed for Ltd. disallowance of Modvat credit on zinc ingots under Rule 57A on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
______________________________________________________________________________________
15. E/1238 Bajaj 5,16,344/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Plastics - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on waste and paring of plastic cleared payment of duty.
______________________________________________________________________________________
16. E/1239 Bajaj 1,44,980/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Dhatu - rejected the departmental Mum Udyog appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on refractory cements, chemical products under Rule 57Q.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
17. E/1240 Sunflag 2,36,541/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on tundish board and tyre tubes under Rule 57Q.
___________________________________________________________________________________
18. E/1241 Gurukrip E/CO- 10,07,850 Commissioner (A) has /2001- a Resins 122/2001 /- rejected the departmental Mum (P) Ltd. -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authrisation under Section 35E(2) ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ___________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________ without considering the merits of the case.
____________________________________________________________________________________
19. E/1242 Sunflag 81,545/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on inadmissible inputs viz.
Flux/Chemicals under Rule 57A.
____________________________________________________________________________________
20. E/1243 Manikgar 51,660/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- h Cement rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed electrical goods and steel tubes under Rule 57Q.
____________________________________________________________________________________
21. E/1244 Lloyds E/CO- 1,92,999/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel 127/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Industries -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
____________________________________________________________________________________
22. E/1245 Lloyds 1,03,721/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Steel - rejected the departmental Mum Industries appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
23. E/1248 Bakesma E/CO- 2,73,504/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- n 100/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Industries -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on improper documents.
______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ______________________________________________________________________________________
24. E/1249 Sunflag 5,21,166/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Industries of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on refractory material under Rule 57A.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
25. E/1519 L & T Ltd. 2,98,600/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- - rejected the departmental Mum appeal on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
______________________________________________________________________________________
26. E/1520 Pee Vee 1,32,237/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Textiles - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on improper documents.
______________________________________________________________________________________
27. E/1521 Sharda E/CO- 92,599/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- IspatLtd. 136/2001 rejected the departmental Mum -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
______________________________________________________________________________________
28. E/1522 Shubham 3,22,756/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polymers - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit allowed on the strength of duplicate copy of bill of entry.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
29. E/1523 DCL 5,25,000/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polyester - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ______________________________________________________________________________________ of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on under Rule 57A.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
30. E/1524 L & T Ltd. 63,737/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- rejected the departmental Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
31. E/1525 Sunrise 1,05,217/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Structural - rejected the departmental Mum and appeal filed on the ground Engineeri of improper authorisation ng Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. National profit not added in assessable value.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
32. E/1526 Sunflag 1,60,575/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on tundish board and tyre chain, MS Channel and tyres under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
33. E/1527 Vasant 1,60,888/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Sahkari - rejected the departmental Mum Sakhar appeal filed on the ground Karkhana of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________________________________
34. E/1528 Ballarpur 5,49,253/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Industries - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed for DC voltage industrial control panel, power control centre, under Rule 57Q on the ______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _______________________________________________________________________________________ ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
35. E/1529 Sundeep 86,000/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polyester rejected the departmental Mum Pvt. Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. Modvat credit allowed goods found short.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
36. E/1530 DCL 1,86,766/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polyester - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
37. E/1532 Sunflag 5,90,047/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on refractory bricks under Rule 57Q.
___________________________________________________________________________________
38. E/1533 L & T Ltd. 1,25,008/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- - rejected the departmental Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
39. E/1534 Associate 1,21,656/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- d Cement - rejected the departmental Mum Company appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the _____________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal ____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Ruls 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
40. E/1536 L & T Ltd. 60,997/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- rejected the departmental Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
______________________________________________________________________________________
41. E/1537 Maharash 38,003/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- tra rejected the departmental Mum Electros- appeal filed on the ground melt Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
________________________________________________________________________________________
42. E/1538 Mundra E/CO- 85,500/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Plywood 146/2001 rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. Modvat credit before installation of machine in the factory.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
43. E/1539 Simplex E/CO- 79,705/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Mills Ltd. 161/2001 rejected the departmental Mum -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
Assessee fails to produce proof of export.
______________________________________________________________________________________
44. E/1540 Vicco E/CO- 20,04,944/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Laboratori 141/2001 rejected the departmental Mum es Ltd. -Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _______________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________
45. E/1543 Superior 3,69,817/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Drinks - rejected the departmental Mum Pvt. Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Penalty not imposed for suppre-
ssion of production.
________________________________________________________________________________________
46. E/1544 ACC Ltd. 62,885/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- rejected the departmental Mum appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
47. E/1546 DCL 2,46,282/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polyester - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
________________________________________________________________________________________
48. E/1547 DCL 1,46,669/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polyester - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________________________________
49. E/1548 Pennar 4,13,431/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Aluminu - rejected the departmental Mum m appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
50. E/1549 Indorama 25,456 Commissioner (A) has /2001- Synthetic rejected the departmental Mum s (I) Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat _________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ credit availed on coning oil under Rule 57A.
________________________________________________________________________________________
51. E/1550 Associate E/CO 4,95,452/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- d Cement 151/2001 - rejected the departmental Mum Company -Mum appeal filed on the ground Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods under Rule 57Q.
________________________________________________________________________________________
52. E/1551 Ballarpur 4,97,363/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Industries - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed for credit availed on cables, RH relay electric circuit breaker, winding wheel under Rule 57Q on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________________________________
53. E/1552 Sunflag 1,33,520/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on inputs chemicals products, foundry fluxes under Rule 57A.
________________________________________________________________________________________
54. E/1553 Manigarh 2,51,983/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Cement - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
______________________________________________________________________________________
55. E/1554 Pennar 77,656/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Aluminiu rejected the departmental Mum m appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat ________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ credit availed on blower, electricals goods under Rule 57Q.
________________________________________________________________________________________
56. E/1555 Sunflag 1,73,984/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and - rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Limited under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on Foundry flux, chemical under Rule 57A.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
57. E/1558 Minex 1,85,518/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Metullurgi - rejected the departmental Mum cal appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on improper documents.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
58. E/1559 VIP 88,472/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Industries rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on machines under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
59. E/1560 Nippon 58,585/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Denro rejected the departmental Mum Ispat Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. Modvat credit availed on electrical wires and cable, electrical goods.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
60. E/1561 Maharash 9,00,579/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- tra - rejected the departmental Mum Electrosm appeal filed on the ground elt Ltd. of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the ______________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _______________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on electrical goods and spare parts under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
61. E/1562 Arbindo 9,52,913/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Liquors - rejected the departmental Mum Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. Modvat credit availed on glass bottle under Rule 57Q.
________________________________________________________________________________________
62. E/1563 Sunflag 90,492/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Iron and rejected the departmental Mum Steel appeal filed on the ground Company of improper authorisation Ltd. under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. inadmissibility of Modvat credit on spare parts, electrical goods, EOT cranes under Rule 57Q.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
63. E/1564 Sundeep 7,75,458/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Polymers - rejected the departmental Mum Pvt. Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
________________________________________________________________________________________
64. E/1565 Nippon 15,641/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Denro rejected the departmental Mum Espat Ltd. appeal filed on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case. i.e. Modvat credit availed on electrical wires and cable, electrical goods, synthetic cloth under Rule 57Q.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
65. E/2418 Surya 16,581/- Commissioner (A) has /2001- Extrusion rejected the departmental Mum s Ltd. appeal on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the _______________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ S. Appeal Responde Cross Amount Ground on which No. nt Objection (in Rs.) Commissioner (Appeals) cismissed the appeal _________________________________________________________________________________________ merits of the case.
Clandestine removal of goods.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
66. E/2419 Suyog 5,12,056/ Commissioner (A) has /2001- Chemicals rejected the departmental Mum Pvt. Ltd. appeal on the ground of improper authorisation under Section 35E(2) without considering the merits of the case.
Clandestine removal of goods.
______________________________________________________________________________________