Supreme Court of India
Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Delhi on 30 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(165)ELT493(SC), AIRONLINE 2003 SC 121, (2004) 113 ECR 717 (2004) 165 ELT 493, (2004) 165 ELT 493
Bench: M.B. Shah, Ashok Bhan, Arun Kumar
ORDER
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 15th December, 2000 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. E/2030/2000-NB and the modified order dated 11th May, 2001, reducing penalty, the assessee has preferred these appeals.
2. At the time of hearing of these matters, learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon three subsequent decisions rendered by the Tribunal taking contrary view than the view which is taken in this matter interpreting Rule 57G(5) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant are as follows :
1. Bellows Paint Equipment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-VI [2001 (138) E.L.T. 1098 (Tri. - Mumbai)]
2. Phoenix Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Meerut [2001 (131) E.L.T. 82 (Tri. - Delhi)]; and
3. Ham co Mining & Smelting Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Surat [2001 (45) RLT 958 (CEGAT-Mumbai)]
3. Further, as Rule 57G(3)(c) is not clear, the Board has issued clarification by Circular dated 26th November, 1996. Hence, this would be a fit case for remitting the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh in accordance with law. It is made clear that the questions raised in these appeals are left open.
4. The appeals are disposed of, accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.