M/S. Modi Arc Electrodes Company Vs. Cce, Meerut - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. in this appeal filed by m/s. modi arc electrodes company, the order against which the appeal has been filed is extracted below:- please refer to your letter no.9378 dated 03.02.99 on the above subject.it this context, it is to intimate that the commissioner has rejected your request due to non observance of procedure on the following grounds:- 1. the claim for remission of duty has not been submitted in the proper proforma as prescribed under t.no.no.20/84 dated 01.12.84. 2. intimation of loss or destruction by fire has not been given to the department within 24 hrs. 4. the fire broke out in your unit in 1996 also,but no mention of this fact has been made in the claim,in terms of para 3(ii) of the trade notice.2. both the sides agree that it is not a speaking appealable order. as per record, on 19.1.98, the commercial manager has reported to the superintendent of central excise,modi nagar that there was a fire in their godown on 17.1.98. some inquiries were made and the case was found to be not covered by the provisions of law and the conditions as laid-down in the relevant trade notice.3. it is seen that on 18.10.2000, the dy. commissioner (tech.) communicated the rejection of the request by the commissioner. a copy of the letter dated 3.2.99, which was disposed of by this communication, is not on record.4. as the letter dated 18.10.2000 is not a speaking appealable order, i consider that it would be in the interest of justice, if this matter is sent back to xxxx the jurisdictional commissioner of central excise to examine the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellants and then pass a speaking appealable order as per law. the appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Modi Arc Electrodes Company, the order against which the appeal has been filed is extracted below:- Please refer to your letter No.9378 dated 03.02.99 on the above subject.

It this context, it is to intimate that the Commissioner has rejected your request due to non observance of procedure on the following grounds:- 1. The claim for remission of duty has not been submitted in the proper proforma as prescribed under T.No.No.20/84 dated 01.12.84.

2. Intimation of loss or destruction by fire has not been given to the Department within 24 hrs.

4. The fire broke out in your unit in 1996 also,but no mention of this fact has been made in the claim,in terms of para 3(ii) of the Trade Notice.

2. Both the sides agree that it is not a speaking appealable order. As per record, on 19.1.98, the Commercial Manager has reported to the Superintendent of Central Excise,Modi Nagar that there was a fire in their godown on 17.1.98. Some inquiries were made and the case was found to be not covered by the provisions of law and the conditions as laid-down in the relevant Trade Notice.

3. It is seen that on 18.10.2000, the Dy. Commissioner (Tech.) communicated the rejection of the request by the Commissioner. A copy of the letter dated 3.2.99, which was disposed of by this communication, is not on record.

4. As the letter dated 18.10.2000 is not a speaking appealable order, I consider that it would be in the interest of justice, if this matter is sent back to xxxx the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise to examine the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to the appellants and then pass a speaking appealable order as per law. The appeal is thus, allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.