ORDER
S.L. Peeran, Member (Judicial)
1. The application for early hearing was considered and as the issue lies in short compass, it is allowed and appeal taken up for final hearing. It was pointed out that for the same period the duty demanded in respect of applicants’ own case, at the time of hearing of Stay Application, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal itself vide Final order No.1798 – 1800/2000 dt. 13.12.2000 the letter issued by the Superintendent, on behalf of the Commissioner cannot be treated as a final order in terms of Rule 4(1) of Induction Furnace Annual Capacity Determination Rules 1997. Therefore, it is submitted that in this case also the Superintendent has issued the order and hence the proceedings is bad in law as held by the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (India) Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai reported in 1999 (108) ELT 578 (T) The appellants therefore seek for remand of the matter for passing a speaking order by the Commissioner who is the designated authority under law to pass such an order under Rule 3A(2) of the CE Rules.
2.Heard Ld. Consultant who prayed, for taking up the matter for final disposal in terms of Final order No.1798 – 1800/2000 dt.13.12.2000 in their own matter, which has been remanded back to the designated authority for de novo consideration as also became the impugned order has not been passed by the Commissioner but by the Superintendent which is not legal in terms of the cited judgement.
3. The Ld. DR opposed the prayer for remand of the case.
4. We have heard both sides in the matter. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Tribunal in the case of Chamundi Steel Castings (I) Ltd. vs. CCE. (Supra) has held that the impugned order is required to be passed by the Commissioner who is the only designated authority to pass such an order under Section 3A (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, the prayer for remand is accepted and the appeal itself is taken up for final hearing. It is seen that in the appellant’s own case by final order No.1798-1800/2000 dt.13.12.2000 the matter has been remanded for de novo consideration to the Commissioner. In that case part of the present period in question has already been remanded for de novo consideration. Therefore, following the cited final order as in the appellant’s own case, the impugned order of the Superintendent is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad to decide the matter afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)