Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E., Jaipur I vs Bagru Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd on 20 July, 2011
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-I Date of hearing/decision:20.07 .2011 Central Excise Appeal No.2605 of 2005 Arising out of the order in appeal No.123 (MPM)/CE/JPR-I/2005 dated 9.5.2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals I) , Central Excise, Jaipur. For Approval and Signature: Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? Yes C.C.E., Jaipur I .. Appellant Vs. Bagru ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. . Respondent
Appearance:
Shri I. Baig, Authorized Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue None for the respondents.
Coram: Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member Oral Order No.____________________ Per Dr. C. Satapathy:
Heard the learned DR, who supports the grounds of appeal advanced on behalf of the Department. He further states that the case is covered in favour of the Department by the Honble Supreme Court decision in the case of C.C.E., Chandigarh vs. Doaba Steel Rolling Mills reported 2011 (269) ELT 298 (SC). No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite notice. As such, the contention raised on behalf of the Department remains uncontroverted. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the matter requires to be considered by the lower appellate authority taking into consideration the grounds of appeal advanced by the Department and the cited case law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for fresh decision after affording adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides. Appeal is thus allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
(Dr. C. Satapathy Technical Member (M.V. Ravindran) Judicial Member scd/