1984 (1) TMI 330 - AT - Central Excise

Deputy Collector's Advice Not Appealable; Tribunal Rejects Application as Incompetent

SHRI NIWAS STEELS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR

SHRI NIWAS STEELS LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR - 1985 (19) E.L.T. 233 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Whether Review Proceedings under Section 35A of the Central Excises and Salt Act could be invoked by the Collector at the instance of an assessee who had not availed of the right of appealRs.2. Whether the Collector was entitled to refuse to exercise powers without assigning any reasonRs.3. Whether the refusal of the Collector to consider the review application under Section 35A amounted to an order or decision against which an application could be preferred under Section 36 of the ActRs.Analysis:The case involved an appeal where the appellants, engaged in manufacturing steel ingots, claimed credit of duty under specific rules and notifications. The Assistant Collector alleged a duty payment discrepancy and issued a show cause notice. The Assistant Collector's order upholding the demand was challenged by the appellants through a review application to the Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. The Tribunal held that the advice given by the Deputy Collector regarding appealability was not an order or decision appealable under the Act. The Tribunal further stated that the Collector had discretion to initiate review proceedings under Section 35A based on the case's merits. The Tribunal concluded that no appeal lay with them and rejected the appeal.During the application for reference under Section 35G, the appellants argued that the Tribunal's order did not relate to the determination of excise duty rates but to the appeal's maintainability. They contended that the communication advising appeal was appealable and that the Collector's review power could not be arbitrarily declined based on the lack of filing an appeal. The appellants cited legal precedents to support their arguments. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the Tribunal's order did relate to excise duty rates and, therefore, Section 35G(1) applied, making the reference application incompetent.The Tribunal analyzed the case and found that the appeal did involve questions related to the interpretation of specific rules and notifications affecting excise duty rates. Despite the Tribunal not explicitly addressing these questions, the Tribunal deemed them to have been dealt with. Citing legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the appeal did relate to excise duty rates, thus making Section 35G(1) applicable, rendering the reference application incompetent. Consequently, the objection raised by the Respondent regarding the application's maintainability was upheld, and the application was rejected as incompetent and not maintainable.