Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Jindal Alloys vs Cce, Rohtak on 7 September, 2009
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R. K. Puram, New Delhi. COURT-I Date of hearing/decision: 07.09.2009 Excise Appeal No. 2073 of 2009 with Excise Stay No. 2160 of 2009 [Arising out of Order-in-Original C. No. IV(16)/ 193/Tech/D-III/5159 dated 27.05.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Rohtak] M/s Jindal Alloys Appellant Vs. CCE, Rohtak Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) ,,,,,,,,,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? Appearance:
Shri K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Shri P.K. Singh, DR for the respondent.
Coram: Honble Shri Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President Honble Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (Technical) Oral Order No.____________________ Per : M. Veeraiyan:
As the appeal can be decided on a very short issue, we waive the pre-deposit of duty as per the impugned order and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally.
2. Heard both sides.
3. The appellant is a manufacture of M.S. Ingots and have opted for the compounded levy scheme during the relevant period. The dispute relates to eligibility of abatement claimed by the appellant for the period from April 1998 to September 1998. The Commissioner vide impugned order dated 27.05.2009 has held that the appellant are not eligible for such abatement relying on the provisions of sub-rule 3 of Rule 96ZO of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that the said rule as it stood prior to 01.09.1997 did not allow abatement if the assessee was availing the benefit under proviso to sub section (3) or under Sub-section (4). However, he draws our attention to the amendment dated 01.09.1997 wherein rule was amended making the abatement conditional only to non availment of benefit under sub-section 4 of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4. Learned DR submits that perhaps this amendment dated 01.09.1997 to Rule 96ZO(3) was not brought before the Commissioner at the time of decision and since the claim for abatement has not been considered on merits, he suggest that the matter may be remanded to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. Learned Advocate has no objection for the same but submits that a time limit may be prescribed for decision as the matter is pending for long.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides. The Commissioner has held that the abatement is not available without taking into account the amendments brought to Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. We deem it appropriate to set aside the order and remand the matter to the Commissioner for deciding the matter afresh after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to both the sides and bearing in mind the observations made by us as above. As the matter relates to the year 1998, we direct the Commissioner to decide the matter expeditiously on or before 31st March 2010.
6. We clarify that we have not expressed any views on the merits of the case.
7. Appeal is remanded in the above terms. Stay petition is also disposed of.
(Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar) President (M. Veeraiyan) Member (Technical) /Pant/