2017 (5) TMI 642

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der taking job work to M/s Amara Raja Batteries Ltd., and Chloride Alloys India Ltd. They were reversing the proportionate CENVAT credit availed by them on the inputs utilized for the job work under the wrong impression that the goods manufactured were exempted goods under Notification No.214/1986. On realizing the mistake, vide letter dated 05.09.2012 they requested the Assistant Commissioner of the concerned Division to grant permission to take re-credit of the CENVAT credit which was reversed since the goods manufactured in terms of notification No.2014/1986 cannot be considered as exempted goods. In response to this letter the Assistant Commissioner issued a reply to them rejecting the request. The Assistant Commissioner vide letter dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndings in the impugned order. He submitted that the letter dated 25.01.2013 cannot be considered as an order against which an appeal can be filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal. 5. The main issue before me is whether the letter dated 25.01.2013 by which the Assistant Commissioner communicated the decision on the issue whether appellant can take re-credit of the mistakenly reversed credit is an appealable order. The Notification No.214/19/86 dated 25.03.1986 provides exemption to the goods which are produced on job work basis under the condition that the supplier of raw material discharges the duty liability on finished products. Due to erroneous understanding of law, the appellant showed the goods as 'exempted ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age of hearing of an appeal, grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. 7. As seen from the above Section, any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under the Act (ibid) can file an appeal under Section 35. The Section used the words 'decision' or 'order'. Such decision can be communicated in the form of a letter also. Merely, because the decision is in the form of a letter, it cannot take away the right of appeal from the aggrieved person. Similar issue was considered by the Co-ordinate bench in the case of CCE, Pune-III ....