Tribunal rules in favor of taxpayer, sets aside duty demand, emphasizing procedural fairness and appeal rights.

The Tribunal set aside the duty demand made in the Superintendent's letter, ruling that despite procedural deficiencies, the duty demand required proper consideration and appeal rights. The decision allowed the Revenue to pursue the matter following legal provisions if necessary.

---

---

Issues involved: Appeal against a letter from Superintendent of Central Excise demanding duty payment without following proper procedure.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HKS(659)CE-2001, dated 6/13-8-2001 of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding a letter from the Superintendent of Central Excise, Dharuhera, highlighting a short payment of duty amounting to Rs. 2,13,615/- during an audit period. The Commissioner held that no appeal lies against the Superintendent's letter as it was based on the ruling of CEGAT in a previous case involving similar issues.

2. The appellant argued that the Superintendent's letter was an attempt to recover a short levy without following proper procedures, causing grievance to the assessee. The Commissioner's reasoning was that the demand was based on a prima facie short levy issue covered by a previous tribunal judgment, making it non-appealable. The appellant's contention was countered by the learned SDR, stating that since the Commissioner had already deemed the letter non-appealable, the present appeal was not maintainable.

3. In a similar case, the Tribunal had set aside a demand made by a Superintendent for duty payment as it was not preceded by an order of adjudication after issuing a show cause notice. The Tribunal clarified that setting aside the demand did not prevent the department from initiating proceedings following proper legal requirements. The Tribunal in the current case found that even if the Superintendent's letter did not adhere to legal provisions, the duty demand made on the appellant required proper consideration and appeal rights. Therefore, the demand raised in the Superintendent's letter was set aside, allowing the Revenue to pursue the matter following legal provisions if necessary.

---