Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Oxford Rubber (P) Ltd vs Cce, Bangalore on 3 February, 2010
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT BANGALORE
Bench Division Bench
Court I
Date of Hearing: 03/02/2010
Date of decision:03/02/2010
Appeal No.E/838-840/06
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.8/2006 dt. 5/5/2006
passed by CCE, Bangalore)
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial)
Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, 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?
No
2.
Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether their Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen
4.
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
M/s. Oxford Rubber (P) Ltd.
Shri Satyajeet Singh
Shri Prabjoth Singh
..Appellant(s)
Vs.
CCE, Bangalore
..Respondent(s)
Appearance Mr.K.S.Ravishankar, Advocate for the appellants.
Ms. Joy Kumari Chander, Jt.CDR for the Revenue.
Coram:
Honble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member(Judicial) Honble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member(Technical) FINAL ORDER No._______________________2010 Per M.V.Ravindran These appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No.8/2006 dt. 5/5/2006.
2. When these matters were called out, ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority as the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings on all submissions made by them. It is also his submission that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the Central Excise duty on the appellant by considering mis-declaration and clubbing all the clearances of the two parties. It is his submission that the appellants plea that both the units are separate and cannot be clubbed together was not considered by the lower authorities and has considered another unit as a dummy unit despite there being contrary evidence.
3. Ld. Jt.CDR would submit that the adjudicating authority has not given any findings on many issues.
4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, we find that the adjudicating authority has not recorded any findings on the question of limitation, non-issuance of show cause notice to M/s. Max Rubber Company, whose clearances were proposed to be clubbed alleging them as dummy unit, clubbing of the clearances merely on the basis of blood relationship. It is also seen from the records that the appellant had been seeking cross-examination of the witnesses which was denied without giving any acceptable reasons. In view of the shortcoming in the impugned order(as indicated hereinabove), we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the adjudicating authority is liable to be set aside and we do so. Keeping all the issues open and without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to re-consider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice.
5. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
(Operative portion of this order pronounced on conclusion of the hearing) (P.KARTHIKEYAN) Member (Technical) (M.V. RAVINDRAN) Member (Judicial) Nr 3