Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 8 August, 2001
JUDGMENT
G.R. Sharma
1. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order observed as under:
"On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the case-laws mentioned above and the issues pointed out, have not been taken into account while the order was passed by the Lower Authority.
In view of above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Lower Authority with a direction to consider the matter afresh after taking into consideration issues/case-laws discussed by the appellant and granting a fresh opportunity of personal hearing to them.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly".
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are a 100% exported oriented undertaking licensed for manufacture of export of its entire product namely, High Carbon Ferro Chrome/Charge Chrome. On their application for transfer of imported raw material to M/s IMFA, Therubali, Rayagada in their export oriented unit, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner permitted transfer subject to the condition that no Transit Loss would be allowed. It was noticed that a short quantity was received at the premises of M/s IMFA, Rayagada. Accordingly, Show-cause Notices were issued. The Deputy Commissioner while adjudicating the case confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,24,603/- (Rupees four lac twenty four thousand six hundred three only). Against this the appellants field an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who ordered as indicated above.
3. Arguing the case for the appellants Shri R. Santhanam, Deputy General Manager (Excise) submitted that a number of issues were raised before the Adjudicating Authority and case-law relevant for the purpose was cited. He submits that the Adjudicating Authority instead of discussing the issues raised and the case-law cited did not comment on the issue. Even in remand he may not consider the issues. He, therefore, prays that the issues may be decided at the level of the Tribunal.
4. Shri A.K. Chattopadhaya, learned D.R. submits that the entire case has been remanded for de novo adjudication with the direction that the issues and the case-law should be examined and considered and therefore, nothing was left for the Tribunal at this stage. he, therefore, prays that the appeals are premature and may be rejected.
5. We have considered the submissions of both sides carefully. We find from the records and the impugned order that the entire issue is kept open and has been remanded for de novo adjudication. In the circumstances, we find force in the argument of the learned D.R. that nothing remains to be decided here. In these circumstances, the appeals are rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)