BORSARA MACHINES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are working under the Modvat credit scheme and availed the Modvat credit in respect of the duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of final product. The contention of the appellant is that they were reversed the credit on 11 -1 -1996 at the direction of Excise officer. Subsequently, as no show cause notice was received or any order passed confirming the demand by denying the credit, the appellants were asked for refund of that amount. The contention is that the Assistant Commissioner vide letter dated 24 -10 -2000 informed that vide earlier letter dated 1 -9 -2000, the decision of the Assistant Commissioner was conveyed to the assessee in this regard. In the letter dated 1 -9 -2000, it was informed to the appellants that issue regarding the irregular availment of credit has been decided by the Assistant Commissioner. In this letter, there is no reference regarding any adjudication order. The contention is, there is no order passed by the competent authority for reversal of this credit. Therefore, the appellants are entitled to this credit which was reversed on 11 -1 -1996.

(2.) WE find that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the appellant as not maintainable as the same has been filed against a letter dated 24 -10 -2000. The dismissal of appeal is unwarranted as appellants were asking for refund of the amount regarding which no demand is raised or confirmed. We find merit in the contention of the appellant that no show cause notice was issued nor any adjudication order was passed by the competent authority for denial of the credit in question. In the letter dated 1 -9 -2000, it was simply mentioned that issue has already been decided by the Assistant Commissioner without reference to any show cause notice or adjudication order. Therefore, in the absence of any notice for demand or adjudication order, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that they are entitled to this credit. The appeal is allowed.