2006 (2) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Appellant. Shri Ganesh Havanur, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. - This appeal arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 54/04-C.E., dated 25-3-2004. The Commissioner (A) has noted that an appeal under Section 35 of the CE Act cannot be filed before him against the Department's communication C. No. IV/16/8/2003/220, dated 14-1-2004, which is on the following lin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....led before the Commissioner is entertainable. The learned Counsel further submits that the Tribunal in the case of Indian Explosives Limited reported in 1991 (56) E.L.T. 583 in an identical situation has considered conveying a decision against a letter to be a decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority and to be appeable under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The learned Counsel s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....no prescribed format for filing a refund application. Therefore, they made a request by their letter dated 9-1-2004. The Dy. Commissioner was not justified in returning the claim for refund, he ought to have given a hearing and called upon the appellants to produce any evidence required for deciding the matter. The Commissioner (A) is also not correct in rejecting the appeal holding that the commu....