M/S S K Woolen Mills vs Cce & St And Customs, Rohtak

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. DEL-EXCUS-003-APP-132-13-14 dated 25.03.2014 passed by CCE (Appeals) Gurgaon]

For approval and signature:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

M/s S K Woolen Mills ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

CCE & ST and Customs, Rohtak Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Dinesh Verma (Advocate) for the Appellant

Mr. Rajeev Gupta (DR) appeared for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing/ Decision. 23.09.2015

Final Order No. 53050 /2015_

Per S K Mohanty:

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise (Appeals) Delhi, wherein it has been held that the communication dated 26.06.2013 of the Jurisdictional Range Superintendent addressed to the appellant cannot be construed as an appealable order in terms of Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.

3. Section 35 of the Act mandates that any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act by a Central Excise Officer, lower in rank than a Commissioner of Central Excise, may appeal to the Commissioner of Central Excise within 60 days from the date of communication to him of such decision or order.

4. I find that the Range Superintendent vide his letter dated 26.6.2013 has conveyed his decision that the appellant is required to deposit the Government dues of Rs. 2,25,900/-. Since the said decision has been communicated through letter dated 26.06.2013 to the appellant, the same should be construed as an appellate order, against which appeal is maintainable before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Act. Thus, dismissal of appeal in the impugned order on the ground that the letter dated 14.03.2014 of the Superintendent is a mere communication and not a decision/order, is not proper and justified, and accordingly, the same is set aside.

5. In view of the fact the merits of the case have not been discussed in the impugned order, I am of the opinion that the matter should go back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for passing a reasoned and speaking order on the basis of available records. Therefore, the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). Needless to say that appellant should be given an opportunity to present its case before passing the order by the Appellate Commissioner. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(S. K. Mohanty)

Member(Judicial)

Neha

2 | Page

ST/53803/2014-Ex[SM]