Appeal maintainability despite absence of formal order, with Modvat credit denial remanded for fresh merits review.

Communication of denial by the jurisdictional authority was treated as a decision or order affecting the assessee, so an appeal was maintainable under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act even though no separately styled formal appealable order had been issued. The Tribunal also held that the challenge to refusal of Modvat credit could not be rejected merely on that procedural ground, and the matter required reconsideration on merits. The assessee's appeal succeeded and the issue of credit denial was remanded for fresh decision on legality.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessees' appeals were maintainable under Section 35(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 despite the absence of a formal appealable order, and whether the denial of Modvat credit required reconsideration on merits.

Analysis: The assessees were aggrieved by the denial of permission to use alternate copies of duty-paying documents and by the consequent refusal of Modvat credit. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeals on the ground that no appealable order had been issued by the lower authority. The Tribunal held that the communication of denial by the jurisdictional authority amounted to a decision or order affecting the assessees, and that the appeals were competent under Section 35(1). The absence of a separately styled formal order did not take away the right of appeal.

Conclusion: The appeals were maintainable and the assessee's challenge succeeded; the matter was remanded for fresh decision on the legality of the denial of credit.

---