TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - I allow the stay application and take up the appeal for final disposal. 2. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of insulated wires and cables and are availing the Cenvat credit facility in respect of inputs and capital goods. The Range Supdt. of Central Excise issued to them letter No. C.E.-20/2002, dated 24-4-2002, on the basis of an Audit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act and hence the demand was ab initio illegal. Ld. Consultant relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal :- (i) Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. CCE [1989 (43) E.L.T. 678] (ii) Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. v. CCE [2001 (129) E.L.T. 780] (iii) Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. CCE [2002 (145) E.L.T. 463 = 2002 (51) RLT 283] Ld. Consultant also cited the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise Act. The impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing the assessee s appeal against the Supdt. s letter as not maintainable cannot, therefore, be sustained. Insofar as the Supdt. s proceedings are concerned, as already noted, the proceedings were quasi-judicial. Any quasi-judicial action can be taken only in accordance with the principles of natural justice which call fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce appealable under the Act to the Collector (Appeals). In Shree Baidyanatgh Ayurved Bhawan (supra) a communication sent by the Supdt. raising a demand of duty on the assessee was set aside on the ground that it was not preceded by issuance of show cause notice. All these decisions are squarely in support of the present appellants case. Hence the proceedings of the Supdt. of Central Excise and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
