Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Maruti Udyog Ltd vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iii on 5 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 05.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/1897/2006 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.71/GRM/GGN/2006, dated 24.02.2006 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-III]
M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-III Respondent
Appearance Shri Hemant Bajaj, Advocate - for the appellants Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.__50445__, dated 05.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides, I find that the present impugned orders are passed by the authorities below in de novo proceedings when the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.1431/04-NBA, dated 13.12.2004 with the following directions:-
3. It is clear from the above, that the legal position about the appellants eligibility to refund remains established. Only specific facts about the cars in question have to be verified and the claim disposed of. Since the order of the lower authority has not gone into the relevant facts, we remand the case to the original authority for verifying the facts and determining the specific amount of refund due and its payment. Appeal is, thus, allowed by way of remand
2. As is seen from the above, the Tribunal has held in favour of the assessee in respect of the refund claimed by them. The matter was remanded for verification of the relevant facts of payment of duty as the cars cleared for the first time and received back in the damaged condition during the transportation.
3. From the impugned order it is seen that instead of verifying the factual position as directed by the Tribunal, the original as also the appellate authorities again went into the legal issues of applicability of Rule 173L and held that as the repair of the damaged cars amounts to manufacture, the appellants are not entitled to pay duty on the same very cars two times.
Admittedly, the said order of the Tribunal was not challenged by the Revenue before the higher appellate forum and as such attained finality, it was not open to the lower authorities to again go into the merits of the case and decide the issue against the assessee. The lower authorities who are doing adjudication and appellate works are accepted at least to be aware of the above legal position that the orders of the higher appellate forums are on interpretation of law and are binding on the lower authorities to move the matter is being remanded only for verification of the factual position. Having said so, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verifying the factual position after giving an opportunity to the appellant to put-forth before them.
4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-