TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (6) TMI 361
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent was made through cheque on 25-7-05. On 1-9-05, the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers visited the Appellant factory and detained the capital goods purchased by them from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Industries on the ground that Central Excise duties are pending recovery from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds. The detention order had been served under Section 11 of Central Excise Act. The Appellant wrote to the jurisdictional Central Excise Officers for lifting of detention. The Dy. Commissioner vide letter dt. 8-3-07 informed the Appellant that there is an arrear of Govt. revenue pending recovery from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds., Jalandhar; that the said party had failed to pay the revenue and hence the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'s judgment in the case of Bhagwati Gases Ltd. v CCE, Jaipur reported in 2008 (85) RLT 153 (Del.) = 2008 (226) E.L.T. 468 (Tribunal) wherein it was held that if on consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is found that the order communicated by the impugned letter is such as to affect the rights of the party, the appeal would be maintainable; as the law does not countenance a situation where the person is rendered remediless and that in the circumstances of the case when the Appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals), he was obliged to decide the matter on merit and that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the appeal is not maintainable, is not correct; that similar view was taken by the Tribunal in the case of Gen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner may give reasonable belief that no appeal can be filed against such communication 3. I have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The only point of dispute to be decided in this case is as to whether the letter dt. 8-3-07 of Dy. Commissioner (Technical) communicating the decision to the Appellant regarding detention of the goods under Section 11 for recovery of duty is an appealable order. While the Department's contention is that there were some Govt. arrears pending recovery from M/s. Santosh Rubber and M/s. Allied Inds., Jalandhar, from whom the goods had been purchased by the Appellant and there is no contention of the Department that there were any arrears pending recovery from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment that their request for applying depreciation on capital goods at the rates mentioned in earstwhile Rule 57-S(2) cannot be acceded to as there is no provision to provide depreciation under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and the Appellant accordingly was advised to remove the capital goods only on payment an amounting equal to the Cenvat credit originally taken on the capital goods. M/s. Bhagwati Gases Ltd. filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) against this decision of CCE (Appeals) and their appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as non-maintainable. The Tribunal in this case held that if on consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is found that the order communicated by the impugned letter is such as to affect t....