Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 3]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Lml Limited vs Cce, Kanpur on 27 March, 2008

        

 
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
COURT NO.II
			            
                                E/Appeal No.3860 /2006-SM

(Arising out of Order in Original  No.34/Comm./MP/06 dated 16.11.06 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur)

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. LML Limited                                                              Appellant	                                 
                                                     (Rep. by Shri R. Santhanam, Advocate)
						  
	Vs                                         

CCE, Kanpur				        Respondent

(Rep. by Shri S. Gautam, DR) Coram: Honble Mr P.K. Das, Member(Judicial) Date of Hearing:27.3.2008 Order No. /2008-SM(BR) Per P.K. Das:

Heard both sides and perused the record.

2. In this case, credit had been denied on the ground that the duty paying documents were neither in the name of appellants nor had been endorsed to the appellants. The Tribunal by Final Order No. 342/06 dated 22.2.06 remanded this matter to the Original Authority with the direction that if the transaction is proved by attending connected purchase order and other materials, credit is required to be allowed, as credit is permissible from the depot as well as direct supply to the job worker. The learned Advocate submits that representative of the appellant company attended the hearing on 30th October, 2002 before the Adjudicating Authority and stated that the factory was under lockout and they were not in a position to get all the records and the purchase order. The Adjudicating Authority passed the order on the basis of documents available on record. The learned Advocate submits that the lock out has already been lifted. He submits that they are able to provide documents as directed by the Tribunal in the earlier remand order.

3. Taking into overall facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, I set aside the impugned order and matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellants. Needless to say that the appellants will provide all the documents as directed by the Tribunal in is earlier order. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).


	
								     (P.K. Das)
MPS*							                Member(Judicial)