Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd on 9 June, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.E-21/06
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.244/Kol-III/05 dated 16.09.05 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals-I) of Central Excise, Kolkata.)
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE
HON'BLE SHRI S.S. KANG, VICE PRESIDENT
HON'BLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL 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
Authorative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
M/s. Jenson & Nicholson (I) Ltd.
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri J.A. Khan, Authorised Representative (SDR) for the Revenue Shri K.K. Acharya, Advocate for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice President Hon'ble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing:- 09.06.2009 Date of Pronouncement :- 09.06.2009 ORDER NO............................................................................
Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy.
1. Heard both sides.
2. The Department's Appeal is solely on the ground that the lower appellate Authority has placed reliance on the Tribunal's decision in the case of National Aluminium Co. vs. CCE-BBSR. - 2005 (184) ELT 183 (Tri) and that the Department has filed Appeal against the same in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondents brings to our notice that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to grant stay against the cited decision in the case of National Aluminium Co. as reported in 2005 (190) ELT A-176 (SC). Further he states that similar other decision of the Tribunal has been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Pune vs. Cadbury India Ltd. - 2006 (200) ELT 353 (S.C.).
3. After hearing both the sides and perusal of case records including the cited decisions we find that lower appellate Authority has only remanded the matter for fresh decision by the lower Authority and therefore the Department has an opportunity to agitate before the adjudicating Authority in respect of any of the points raised in this Appeal. Moreover, the decision relied upon by the lower appellate Authority in the case of National Aluminium Co. has not been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and hence, the same requires to be followed. Accordingly we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Consequently the Department's Appeal is dismissed.
(Pronounced and dictated in the open court.) sd/ sd/ (S.S.KANG) (CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY) VICE PRESIDENT TECHNICAL MEMBER sm 2 Appeal No.E-21/06