Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
C.C.E., Pune vs M/S. Telco on 3 April, 2001
ORDER K.K. Bhatia, Member (T)
1. These appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as the M/s. TELCo against the seven numbers Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Pune. The brief facts are that M/s. TELCO manufacture Motor Vehicles, machines, Chasis and Motor Vehicle parts. They manufactured certain parts in the workshop within their factory premises and claimed exemption under Notfn. No. 281/86 dt. 24.4.86. In respect of the same goods manufactured within the factory and consumed captively, they also claimed exemption under Notfn. No.220/86 dt. 2.4.86. Similarly in respect of the items viz. Tools, Jigs, and Fixtures etc. manufactured within the factory and captively consumed, the exemption as claimed under Notfn. No. 220/86 dt. 2.4.86. The Departmental authorities in their various orders allowed the exemption to the assesses under these notifications in respect of certain goods internally produced and consumed captively but the same was denied in respect of the other goods. The assessee filed appeals against such order and the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune partly allowed the appeals of the party.
2. The present appeal under consideration are the ones filed by the Revenue against the aforestated orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune in which the Appellate Authority has allowed the benefit of the aforestated notifications to the assessee on the goods manufactured and consumed captively. Shri R. Swaminathan, Consultant appearing for M/s. TELCO at the very outset submitted that the Tribunal in their Final Order No. 131-134/2001/B dt. 3.2.2001-in which the present respondents were one of the party to the appeal filed in respect of the same Order-in-Appeal-had already remanded the matter to the original authority for de-novo consideration in the following terms:
"Both sides submit that the main issue involved in these appeals is these eligibility of certain machinery items manufactured in a factory to exemption under Notification No. 217/86 and that issue remains covered by the Larger Bench decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore vs. M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd. reported in 2001 (42) RLT 817 (CEGAT-LB). Since the cases involved several items both the sides agree that the appeals may be disposed of by way of remand, with a direction that the cases be reconsidered and disposed of in the light of the decision in M/s. Surya Roshni Ltd., and other decisions relevant to the issue. We accept the suggestion and the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Needless to say, the appellants shall be given opportunity to present their case during the remand proceedings".
3.The Id. Consultant for the respondents submits that these matters may also be remanded for re-consideration, as most of the items in both the appeals remains the same covering the same issue. Shri R.C. Sankhla, JDR for the Revenue/appellants, however, submits that the issue relating to the availability of the exemption on the goods produced and consumed captively under Notfn. No.281/86-CE dt. 24.4.86, in respect of which the Revenue is in appeal in the present proceedings, is already settled in favour of the Revenue in the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. TISCO vs. CCE reported in 2001 (118) ELT (L.B). The Id. JDR further submits that the appeal filed by the assessee against this order is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported on Page A 67 of ELT 2001 (128)Part-I. He therefore contends that the appeal of the Revenue sofar as it relates to the availability of the exemption under Notfn. No.281/86-CE should be allowed following the ratio of the above said decision of the Larger Bench of the CEGAT as confirmed by the Apex Court as per the above citation.
4. We have considered the submissions made before us by both the sides. As rightly submitted by the Id. Consultant for the respondents, the issue by and large already stands covered by the aforestated order of the Tribunal in which the matter is remanded to the original authority for re-consideration. Thus, it is but fair that the same course should be followed in the present proceedings also. We, accordingly, set aside the orders appealed against and remand the matter to the original authority for re-consideration on the same terms and conditions as extracted above. On re-consideration, the original authority shall also keep in view the Order of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. TISCO as also the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to supra. The original authority shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents before taking the final view of the matter.
5. All the appeals are thus allowed by remand in the above terms.
(Announced and dictated in the Court)