TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 712X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice S.N. Jha, President]. This appeal on behalf of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur dated 13-8-2008 dismissing its appeal holding the same to be not maintainable. The learned Commissioner observed that the communication impugned in the appeal before him was advisory in nature and no direction had been issued to the appellant. The impugned communication may be quoted in extenso at the outset as under :- Please refer to your letters No. BGL/DEL/2006-07/202, dated 27-10-2006 and 210 dated 6-11-2006 on the above subject. 2. The matter was re-examined by the competent authority and I have directed to inform you that you ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the excise records. Correspondence took place between the appellant and the authorities and, finally, the impugned communication was made in terms of which the appellant can remove the capital goods only on payment of Cenvat credit taken on the said capital goods. 3. The appeal came up for hearing on the point of waiver of pre-deposit of duty. Opposing the prayer, the Departmental Representative submitted that the appeal before the Commissioner was not maintainable as no cause of action had arisen to the appellant to approach the Commissioner and, on the same reasoning, therefore the present appeal too is not maintainable. According to the learned Departmental Representative, the impugned communication cannot be read as a decision or ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... certain orders of this Tribunal were brought to our notice. In Inox Air Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad, 2004 (174) E.L.T. 217, the communication which was subject matter of the appeal merely informed the party that in terms of the relevant rule no permission could be granted. In Punjab Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh, 2001 (130) E.L.T. 761, the communication stated that benefit available under Section 3A(1) of the Central Excise Act was not admissible. In Lumbini Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Patna, 2005 (192) E.L.T. 682, the communication intimated that the appellants are entitled to take Cenvat credit on the inputs installed subject to the verification of documents. In CCE, Belgaum v. Southern Ferro Ltd., 2006 (205) E.L.T. 695, reje ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al were cited on behalf of the appellant. As we are not going into the merit, we do not intend to refer to those decisions. 8. It would thus appear that the question as to whether particular letter or communication amounts to order or decision so as to make the appeal maintainable would depend on facts of each case. If on consideration of the facts and circumstances, it is found that the order communicated by the impugned letter is such as to affect the rights of the party, the appeal should be maintainable. We put a pointed question to the learned Departmental Representative that if the appeal is held to be not maintainable, what would be the remedy of the appellant. The law does not countenance a situation where the person is rendered r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
