Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Allahabad vs M/S. Kanoria Chemical & Inds. Ltd on 29 March, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. II
Central Excise appeal No. 1892/2009
With E/C.O. No. 158/2009
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 47, 48-CE/ALLD/2009 dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Allahabad]
Date of Hearing/decision: 29th March, 2012
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial 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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Allahabad Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Kanoria Chemical & Inds. Ltd., Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Bharat Bhushan, SDR Present for the Respondent : Shri J.M. Dagar, DGM (Excise) Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
Revenue has come in appeal against first appellate order dated 31.3/2009 wherein learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not at all looked into what was real issue before him in terms of show cause notice issued on 26.12.2007. The show cause notice has brought out so many items in Para 5 thereof. None of the authorities below has mentioned that they had examined the record of the appellant but has superficially dealt with the matter in one way or the other.
2. Law requires that the matter in controversy should be brought out thread bare and each controversy should be addressed with the submissions and evidences on record. The reasons of decision should be stated by a reasoned and speaking order. A mechanical approach shall not bring the appellant to the tax burden. Adjudicating Authority should now, therefore, thread bare examine the items stated in the show cause notice as to the date of acquisition, whether recorded in the record prescribed by law or not. If so, whether Cenvat credit on each item was availed or not. On determination of these aspects,, whether the capital goods fully or partly gave rise to wastage or scrap is to be determined. The stage at which those goods were removed considering the age length of each goods and proper value thereof, the authority shall proceed to find out whether there shall arise a liability.
3. The appellant should be given fair opportunity of hearing while redoing the exercise of adjudication consequent upon present remand to that authority. In the result, matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for redoing the adjudication in the above light.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.) (D.N. PAND) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 3