https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82797 Rule 57H vested the power to allow or disallow Modvat credit in the Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent of Central Excise. A communication issued by the Superintendent in purported exercise of that power had no legal efficacy, because no valid order signed and communicated by the competent authority had been passed. Such a communication could not be treated as an appealable order under the rule. The document therefore states that the Superintendent acted without jurisdiction, the communication was non est, and the matter had to be considered afresh by the competent authority in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 13 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:23:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82797 Rule 57H vested the power to allow or disallow Modvat credit in the Assistant Collector, not the Superintendent of Central Excise. A communication issued by the Superintendent in purported exercise of that power had no legal efficacy, because no valid order signed and communicated by the competent authority had been passed. Such a communication could not be treated as an appealable order under the rule. The document therefore states that the Superintendent acted without jurisdiction, the communication was non est, and the matter had to be considered afresh by the competent authority in accordance with law. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Sep 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82797