COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal filed by Revenue is directed against Order -in -Appeal No. 139/2002, dated 7 -11 -2002 by which ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, has held that the refund claim received by PA to Assistant Commissioner are to be treated as received in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Division -I and therefore held that the refund application has been filed by the appellant/assessee with the Assistant Commissioner. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had therefore directed the Assistant Commissioner to process the refund claim and decide the same on merits by observing the principles of natural justice.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by this order, the Revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to observe that as per Board's Circular No. 130/41/95 -CX., dated 30 -5 -95 Collector's (Commissioners) were required to direct the divisional Assistant Commissioner's to designate an officer by name to carry out the scrutiny of refund claim filed and to issue acknowledgement thereafter. Revenue further submits that as per Trade Notice No. 58/95, dated 13 -6 -95 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai -III informing the contents of the above Board's letter dated 30 -5 -95 to the trade and industry, it was clearly informed that the scrutiny of a refund claim had to be carried out by an officer not below the rank of Inspector for its correctness and the acknowledgement would be issued within 48 hours of the receipt of the application immediately after the completion of the preliminary verification which will be evidence for the receipt of the application in terms of Section 11BB. They further submitted that if the Commissioner (Appeals) view is accepted then it would mean that in the absence of an officer nominated by name by the Assistant Commissioner then the Assistant Commissioner had to give acknowledgement. This would be contrary to the instructions given in the trade notice that scrutiny should be done and acknowledgement should be issued by an officer not below the rank of Inspector. It was in this background, Revenue came up in appeal to set aside the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) HEARD Ld. SDR Smt. Bhaghya Devi, who has reiterated the ground of appeal.