Quasi-judicial reversal of Cenvat credit requires prior notice and hearing; appeal against the superintendent's direction was maintainable.

A direction requiring reversal of Cenvat credit was treated as quasi-judicial because it directly affected the assessee's substantive entitlement and carried civil consequences. As such, it required compliance with natural justice, including prior notice and an opportunity of hearing. In the absence of a show cause notice under Section 11A before directing reversal, the demand was unsustainable. The Superintendent's letter was therefore appealable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was incorrect in holding the assessee's appeal not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Superintendent's direction requiring reversal of Cenvat credit was a quasi-judicial order appealable under Section 35A of the Central Excise Act, and whether the demand could be sustained without prior show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

Analysis: A direction requiring reversal of credit directly affects the assessee's substantive entitlement and carries civil consequences. Such a direction is therefore quasi-judicial in character and not a mere administrative communication. Being quasi-judicial, it must conform to the principles of natural justice, including prior notice and opportunity of hearing. The absence of a show cause notice before directing reversal of credit rendered the proceedings unsustainable. The Commissioner (Appeals) was not correct in treating the assessee's appeal as not maintainable.

Conclusion: The Superintendent's letter was appealable, and the impugned demand and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) could not be sustained. The decision is in favour of the assessee.

---