Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commr. Of Central Excise, Bolpur vs M/S Acc Ltd on 12 August, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EAST REGIONAL BENCH : KOLKATA
Ex.Appeal No.390/10
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.19/BOL/2010 dated 26.2.2010 passed by Commr. of Central Excise (Appeal IV), Kolkata
For approval and signature :
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT
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 His Lordship wishes to see the fair copy
of the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commr. of Central Excise, Bolpur
APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
M/s ACC Ltd.
RESPONDENT (S)
APPEARANCE Shri R. K. Chakraborty, SDR for the Department None for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT Date of hearing & decision : 12.08.2010 ORDER NO.. Per Shri S. S. Kang :
Heard the ld. SDR for the Department as none appeared on behalf of the respondents. The Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority in view of the remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.8.2007 and directed the adjudicating authority to decide the issue involved in the appeal as per the remand direction given by the Tribunal.
2. The contention of the Revenue is that in the earlier case where the matter was remanded by the Tribunal dated 10.8.2007, the demand was in respect of quantity of raw materials which was described as transit loss in the records of the manufacturer. Whereas in the present case, there was a shortage of raw materials on which credit has been availed. The contention of the Revenue is that as the issue in the present proceeding is different from the earlier case, therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.
3. I have gone through the remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 10.8.2007 whereby the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority and the demand was in respect of quantity which as per the manufacturer as transit loss. In the present case, two show-cause notices were issued for demand of duty in respect of inputs on which credit is availed were found short during verification. In the circumstances, I find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the issue involved in the present appeal is different than the earlier case. The impugned order is set aside the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondents.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court) Sd/ (S. S. KANG) VICE PRESIDENT mm 3 Ex. Appeal No.390/10