Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Banswara Textile Mills Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-Ii on 9 January, 2008
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
E/Appeal No.1373-1374/2006-SM
(Arising out of order in appeal No.62-63/HKS/CE/JPR.II/2006 dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.P.K. Das, Member(Judicial))
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the Order ?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the
Departmental authorities?
______________________________________________________
M/s Banswara Textile Mills Ltd Appellant
(Rep. by Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate)
Vs
CCE, Jaipur-II Respondent
(Rep. by Shri S. Gautam, DR) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing: 9.1.2007 Order No. Per P.K. Das:
The learned Advocate for the appellants submits that both the appeals are arising out of remand orders of the Tribunal. He submits that by Final Order dated 23rd February, 2005, the Division Bench of the Tribunal respect remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the Order in Original dated 21st November, 2001, as to while sanctioning the refund amount of duty, adjudicating authority rejected the amount of Rs.3,84,102/- as demanded herein. He submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the impugned order, had not examined the adjudicating order dated 21ar November, 2001. In this connection, he drew the attention of the Bench at para 4 of the Order in Original dated 21st November, 2001 wherein it has been observed that the appellant availed excess deemed credit to the extent of Rs. 3,81,102/-. He further submits that the said amount was deducted from the refund claim by Order in Original dated 21st November, 2001. With regard to demand of duty of Rs. 49,352/-, he submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the order without following the direction of the remand order dated 26thJuly, 2005 of the Tribunal.
2. The learned DR reiterates the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the record, I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in the Order in Original dated 21st November, 2001, the adjudicating authority did not allow the refund in cash in respect of the impugned deemed credit. It appears from the Order in Original dated 21.11.2001 that the said amount was deducted by the adjudicating authority from the refund claim. However, there is no such finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. So the Order in Original dated 21st November, 2001 and the present demand of duty are required to be examined. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside and the matters remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to examine the demand of duty with the finding of the adjudicating authority in adjudication order dated 21st November, 2001. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
(P.K. Das)
MPS* Member(Judicial)