2007 (1) TMI 377

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....business of building body on chassis for motor vehicles. They are said to be temporarily out of this business after receiving the impugned order. Before that, they were taking Cenvat credit of the duty paid on chassis and other materials used for body-building and clearing the final product as complete motor vehicles falling under Heading 87.04 of the CETA Schedule on payment of duty of excise @ 16%. While so, they received a letter dated 15-2-2006 of the Superintendent of Central Excise, wherein it was stated that they were not entitled to take Cenvat credit as above without following the procedure stipulated under Notification No. 6/02-CE dated 31-3-2002 in terms of Sl. No. 214 (iv) thereunder. The Superintendent's letter also contained a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....uts or to disallow the benefit of the notification. A similar case which arose before this Bench is cited by counsel. It is submitted that, in that case, the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) for considering the claim of the party for the benefit of input-duty credit on chassis without exemption for final product under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. ibid vide Final Order Nos. 671 & 672/2006 dated 31-7-2006 in Appeal Nos. E/1071 & 1134/2005 (M/s. Automotive Coaches and Components Ltd. v. CCE, Chennai [2007 (207) E.L.T. 567 (Tribunal)]). Learned SDR reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. After considering the submissions, we find that the impugned order was passed in respect of fully bu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ats the Superintendent's letter as an administrative order cannot be sustained for a moment. Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) would have done well to set aside the Superintendent's instructions and paved the way for quasi-judicial proceedings. In the case of M/s. Automotive Coaches & Components Ltd. (supra) cited by counsel, the assessee was luckier to have a show-cause notice and, in the facts of that case, we remanded the case to the Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority). In the present case, which, as already indicated, is grossly vitiated by negation of natural justice by the lower authorities to the appellants, we must be quick to set aside the impugned order to enable the department to follow the basic tenets of adjudication. 6. At ....