Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd vs Cce, Allahabad on 13 March, 2012
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM,
NEW DELHI-110066
COURT NO. IV
E/Misc./177/11 & E/Stay/198/10 in &
Central Excise appeal No. 195 of 2010-SM
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 139-CE/ALLD/2009 dated 22.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Allahabad)
Date of Hearing/decision: 13th March, 2012
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial 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 authoritative report or not?
3
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4
Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd., Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Allahabad Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Shri Bharat Bhusan, DR Coram: Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member FINAL ORDER NO. ________________ Per D.N. Panda:
There is no objection from Revenue for change of cause title in the case. Accordingly Misc. application No. 177/2011 is allowed.
2. Shri Bipin Garg submits that excise duty of Rs. 81,047.79 arose disallowing Cenvat credit on certain goods used in repair and maintenance of the plant. In the past occasion following 3 Apex Court judgments the Tribunal has remanded the matter for retest:-
1) 2010 (253) ELT 440 (Tri.-LB) Vandana Global Ltd. vs. CCE, Raipur;
2) 2010 (255) ELT 481 (SC) CCE, Jaipur vs. Rajasthan Spg. Mills.;
3) 2011 (270) ELT 465 (SC) Saraswati Sugar Mills vs. CCE, Delhi-III Shri Garg submits that there is also a direct judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of UOI vs. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. 2007 (214) ELT 510 (Raj.) on the subject.
3. In view of the above, Shri Garg prays that this matter may also go back for retest by the Adjudicating Authority.
4. Revenue has no objection for the remand.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. For the submissions made above, keeping the present appeal pending in Tribunal is of no use. Accordingly dispensing with the requirement of pre-deposit, the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to retest the factual aspect in the light of law laid down by the aforesaid judicial pronouncements. (Pronounced in the open Court) (D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER RK 2 E/195/2010-SM