2007 (10) TMI 506

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... None appeared on behalf of the appellant. Heard the ld. DR on behalf of the Revenue and perused the records. 2. The issue involved in this case is denial of Cenvat Credit under Rule 57H of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellant availed Modvat credit in respect of the inputs and finished goods under Rule 57H. Subsequently, the Superintendent of Central Excise by letter dated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Rules, 1944. The appellants challenged this order before the Commissioner (Appeals). By order-in-appeal dated 24-6-2005, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The relevant portion of the order-in-appeal is reproduced below :- "Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seen that the main contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his earlier order-in-appeal held that the Superintendent's letter dated 6-2-96 is to be treated as a nullity on the issue. Therefore, the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order that the letter dated 6-2-96 is to be treated as a show cause notice, cannot be accepted. I agree with the submiss .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X