Maintainability of appeal and remand for CT-1 certificates where missing particulars can be supplied on fresh application.

A communication issued by a Deputy Commissioner with the Commissioner's approval was treated as appealable to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal used its procedural power to avoid a fresh appeal and delay. The refusal to approve bulk CT-1 certificates was based on missing particulars such as quantity, description, and value of goods; because the applicant was willing to supply those details, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on a new application. Where a request is rejected for want of necessary particulars and the applicant can furnish them, remand for reconsideration is appropriate in the interest of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal against the communication issued with the approval of the Commissioner; (ii) whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of the request for issue of CT-1 certificates.

Issue (i): whether the appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal against the communication issued with the approval of the Commissioner.

Analysis: The communication, though issued by the Dy. Commissioner, was issued with the approval of the Commissioner. On that basis, the proper course was an appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal invoked its procedural power to avoid forcing a fresh appeal and delay application.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration of the request for issue of CT-1 certificates.

Analysis: The refusal to approve issuance of CT-1 certificates in bulk was based on the absence of particulars such as quantity, description, and value of goods in the application. Since the appellant agreed that these details could be furnished and sought to make a fresh application, the matter was considered fit for reconsideration on a fresh request with the required particulars.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise for fresh consideration on a new application.

Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained an opportunity to renew the request before the Commissioner, and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration instead of being finally decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a request is refused for want of necessary particulars, and the applicant is willing to supply them, the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration in the interest of justice.

---