Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Swastik Engineering vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 2 September, 2014

        

 

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH
BANGALORE

Final Order No.    21622 / 2014    
Application(s) Involved:

E/Stay/26197/2013    in    E/25903/2013-DB

Appeal(s) Involved:

E/25903/2013-DB 

[Arising out of Orders-in-Appeal No. 94-97/2013 dated 11/03/2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore]

Swastik Engineering
Shed No.6, Boralingappa Garden, Muddappa Industrial Estate, Peenya SSI, Bangalore Dist - 560 058
Karnataka 	Appellant(s)
	
	Versus	
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs, Bangalore-II 
PB 5400, CR Building, Queens Road, 
Bangalore  560 001
Karnataka	Respondent(s)

Appearance:

Mr. Pradyumna G.H., Advocate No. 244, 1st Cross, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Block Bangalore  560 085 Karnataka For the Appellant Mr. R. Gurunathan, AR For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Date of Hearing: 02/09/2014 Date of Decision: 02/09/2014 Order Per: B.S.V. MURTHY The issue involved in brief that the appellants are engaged in the activity of slitting and cutting of excisable goods and are availing CENVAT credit of duty on the inputs viz. coils of brass, bronze and copper on payment of duty. The very same issue had come up before this Tribunal earlier and vide Final Order No. 21272 to 21273/2014 the matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit. In this case also, the appeals have been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) since the appellants did not deposit the amount as per the Stay Order. In view of the fact that this Tribunal had earlier remanded the matter with a direction to hear the matter and decide on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit, in this case also following the precedent decision, we consider it appropriate that the matter should be remanded at this stage itself. Accordingly the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to decide the issue on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court on 02.09.2014) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER iss