1997 (7) TMI 379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat Assistant Commissioner was not competent to decide cases involving Modvat credit claims above Rs. 50,000/-. 2.  Commissioner has prayed for quashing of the said order of Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly interpreted the provisions of law as well as failed to appreciate of the facts of the case. 3. Arguing the case of the Department Shri Jahngir Singh, JDR stated by three different orders, Assistant Commissioner, Jaipur had adjudicated Modvat claims of M/s. J.K. Textile, M/s. Manglam Cement Ltd. and two claims of Shri Ram Rayons disallowing Modvat claims of the three assessees and imposed penalties on them. In all the cases the amounts involved in Modvat claim exceeded Rs. 50....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-1987 directed that all Show Cause Notices for disallowing the Modvat credit except in cases where Modvat credit is wrongly availed with intent to evade excise duty would be decided by the Assistant Commissioner. Further, the Jaipur Commissionerate had on 21-7-1995 clarified that Show Cause Notices in the normal course under Rules 57-I and 57U shall be issued and adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner except where credit had been taken on account of suppression of fact and useful statement etc. Since the powers delegated by the Board or by the Commissioner to the Assistant Commissioner did not prescribe any minimum or maximum monetary limit for issuing Show Cause Notices or for adjudicating the cases for wrongful availment....