ORDER
U.L. Bhat, J. (President)
1. Respondent is absent in spite of notice of hearing. We have heard Shri R.D. Negi, SDR appearing for the appellant and perused the papers.
2. Respondent, engaged in the manufacture of paper and paper products, was availing Modvat credit of the basic excise duty and special excise duty paid on the inputs manufactured by and purchased from SSI units enjoying the benefit of exemption. Apparently, SSI units were paying, by virtue of exemption, special excise duty of lesser amount. However, the respondent was availing Modvat benefit to the extent of the higher special excise duty which would have been payable but for the exemption notification in favour of SSI units. The jurisdictional Superintendent of Central Excise, by letter dated 8-8-1988 informed the respondent that Modvat credit would be available only to the extent of the actual amount of excise duty paid by small scale units and requiring the respondent to debit the excess amount of credit taken. The respondent approached the Assistant Collector complaining that the Superintendent had no jurisdiction to take such a decision and requesting the A.C. to adjudicate the issue. The Assistant Collector informed the respondent that it was within the competence of the Superintendent to take a decision on the admissibility of Modvat benefit. Thereupon, the respondent filed an appeal before Collector (Appeals) against the letters of the Superintendent and the Assistant Collector. Collector (Appeals) held that the Superintendent did not have the jurisdiction to decide the claim in question and allowed the appeal. This order is now challenged.
3. Shri R.D. Negi, SDR has brought to our notice the decision of the Tribunal in Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise – 1989 (43) E.L.T. 678 (Tribunal) where it was held that it was within the power of the Superintendent under Rule 57-1 to reverse the credit wrongly availed and that the power was quasi-judicial in nature. Therefore, the view taken by Collector (Appeals) that the decision was beyond the jurisdiction of the Superintendent is erroneous. The Collector (Appeals) should dispose of the appeal on merits.
4. The impugned order passed by Collector (Appeals) is set aside and the case remanded to jurisdictional Collector (Appeals) for decision afresh after giving the respondent an opportunity of personal hearing.