https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86367 Assistant Commissioner was held to be the proper officer to adjudicate demands for wrongful availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I and Rule 57Q, so the jurisdictional objection was rejected. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the matter only on jurisdiction and had not examined the merits, the dispute was remanded for de novo consideration on the substantive issues. en-us Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:00:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86367 Assistant Commissioner was held to be the proper officer to adjudicate demands for wrongful availment of Modvat credit under Rule 57-I and Rule 57Q, so the jurisdictional objection was rejected. Because the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the matter only on jurisdiction and had not examined the merits, the dispute was remanded for de novo consideration on the substantive issues. Case-Laws Central Excise Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86367