Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Ludhiana vs M/S Jyoti Industries on 5 August, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
COURT NO. II
Excise Appeal No. 2229 of 2008-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 221/CE/LDH/2008 dated 4.8.2008 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh)
CCE, Ludhiana Appellant
Vs.
M/s Jyoti Industries Respondent
Appearance :
Appeared for Appellant : Shri S.K. Bhaskar, DR
Appeared for Respondent: Shri Rupender Singh, Advocate
Date of Hearing: 5.8.2010
CORAM: HONBLE MR. D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Order No.dated.
Per D.N. Panda:
Revenue has come in Appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the ld. Appellate Authority holding that Revenue has not produced any evidence as to whether there was any substitution of the goods which were received and used in the unit of the respondent. So their prayer is for restoration of the order of adjudication.
2. Ld. DR Shri S.K. Bhaskar on behalf of Revenue submits that the present matter is of similar nature as that of M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2009 (236) ELT 124. The Tribunal remanded those matters for proper scrutiny. M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. being aggrieved by that order went to Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana. The said High Court has dismissed the CEA No. 67 of 2009. Therefore the Respondent has no case while Revenue has a good case.
3. Ld. Counsel Shri Rupender Singh submits that there were lack of appreciation of evidence by the ld. Adjudicating Authority for which the Appellate Authority below allowed the appeal of the Respondent. Further, reasons stated in the order no interference is desirable.
3. Heard both sides and perused the record.
4. Adjudication order appears to be a case of loss of Revenue imputing conduct of the Respondent. Ld. Adjudicating Authority has brought out his entire extent of examination beginning from paragraph 11 to 19 of the order of Adjudication. The materials which were before the ld. Adjudicating Authority did not get appreciation of the ld. Appellate Authority. Ld. Counsel in this case submits that he shall have no hesitation to satisfy that Authority with respective evidence if the matter goes back to him.
5. Ld. DR is correct to say that this Tribunal in the case of M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. (supra) has found out how Revenue was prejudiced by scientific method of evasion caused for which appeal of M/s Ranjeev Alloys Ltd. was dismissed by Honble High Court. Against the order Tribunal passed on 3.9.08 by Tribunal, the assessee went on Appeal before Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court. Not only the Honble High Court dismissed the Appeal of the assessee but costs of Rs.5000/- was also imposed. The observation of the Honble Court is significant in this case. However, ld. Counsel having prayed that he shall satisfy the Authorities again on the evidence, the matter is remanded to give a chance to the Appellant to satisfy that Authority, causing appearance on 8th Sept. 2010. If the Appellant submit an application for fixation of the date of hearing before ld. Adjudicating Authority, date of hearing shall be fixed. On the date of hearing so fixed, Appellant shall submit its pleading and evidence for its defence if any. Ld. Adjudicating Authority upon proper examination of the evidence and granting fair opportunity of hearing shall pass appropriate order within three months of conclusion of the hearing. It may be stated that Tribunal does not prefer to remand matters. But finding discrepancy in appreciation of evidence, the Appellants should get a chance in this case. But this order shall not be precedent since passed on peculiar circumstance.
6. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the ld. Adjudicating Authority.
(Dictated & pronounced in open Court) (D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RM