Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Pondicherry vs M/S. Accel Computers Ltd on 14 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No. E/516/2003
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.144/2003 (Pondicherry) dated 6.5.2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Smt. 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?
CCE, Pondicherry Appellant
Vs.
M/s. ACCEL Computers Ltd. Respondents
Appearance Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR for the Appellant None for the Respondents CORAM Honble Smt. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 14.10.2009 Date of Decision: 14.10.2009 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram The revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remitting the case for fresh decision, on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) had no power to remit a case after the amendment to Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by Section 128 of the Finance Act with effect from 11.5.2000.
2. None appears for the respondent in spite of notice. Hence we have heard the learned DR and perused the records. We find that the issue as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power to remand a case even after the amendment of law stands decided in favour of the assessees by the apex Courts decision in Union of India Vs. Umesh Dhaimode 1998 (98) ELT 584 (SC) which has been followed by the Honble Gujarat High Court in CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Medico Labs 2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.).
3. Following the ratio of the above decisions we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3