Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Jumbo Bags Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 7 April, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/624/2002
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.24/2002 dated 13.8.2002 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for Publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. Jumbo Bags Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Respondent
Appearance S/Sh R. Raghavan & M. Kannan, Advocates, for the Appellants Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Respondent CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 07.04.2010 Date of Decision: 07.04.2010 Final Order No. ____________ Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides.
2. The learned counsel Shri Raghavan states that the first part of the demand is covered by the subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lipy Lisy Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mumbai 2004 (171) ELT 118 - appeal against which has been dismissed by the Apex Court. As regards the second part of the demand, he states that he will be in a position to show that the impugned goods were cleared to exporters against CT3 certificates and that the goods have been subsequently exported.
3. As such, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original authority for re-deciding the case in the light of the ratio of the cited decision and after taking into account the fresh documents to be produced by the appellants. The appellants shall be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before deciding the matter afresh.
4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3