Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
4. Whether Order Is To Be Circulated To ... vs M/S Aakar Signs & Prints on 1 December, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH AT AHMEDABAD
COURT - I
Appeal No.E/118/2010-DB
Arising out of: OIO No.17/Commr/MIJM/AHD-II/2009, dt.21.10.2009
Passed by: Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Ahmedabad-II
For approval and signature:
Mr.M.V. Ravindran, Honble Member (Judicial)
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Honble Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No
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 Seen
the order?
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes
authorities?
Appellant:
M/s Aakar Signs & Prints
Respondent:
CCE Ahmedabad-II Represented by:
For Assessee: Shri P.M. Dave, Adv.
For Revenue: Dr. Jeetesh Nagori, Addl.Commissioner (AR) CORAM:
MR.M.V. RAVINDRAN, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. H.K. THAKUR, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:01.12.2014 Order No. A/12144 / 2014, dt.01.12.2014 Per: M.V. Ravindran
1. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Original No. 17/Commr/ MIJM/AHD-II/2009, dt.21.10.2009.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of the records, we find that the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority in as much as the issue is regarding the classification of glow sign boards and digital printed flex. It is the case of the appellant that the glow sign boards are not manufactured product and digital printed flex would fall under Chapter Heading 4901, while it is the claim of the Revenue that the glow sign board is a manufactured item and digital printed flex would fall under Chapter Heading 9405. We find that the entire issue needs reconsideration as following four decisions of the Tribunal will have an impact on the outcome of the entire issue:-
i) Studio Printall (New Delhi) Pvt.Ltd Vs CCE Delhi I 2004 (172) ELT 402 (Tri-Del)
ii) Classic Stripes Pvt.Ltd. Vs CCE Mumbai-IV 2001 (31) ELT 281 (Tri-Mum)
iii) CCE Chennai Vs Titanium Equip. & Anode Mfg. Co.Ltd 2010 (254) ELT 345 (Tri-Che.)
iv) Keshoram Surindernath (Photo-Mag) Vs CCE Bangalore-I 2014-TIOL-955-CESTAT-BANG
4. Since we are of the view the issue needs reconsideration by the adjudicating authority, we do not express any opinion on the merits of the case and have left all the issues open with clear direction to consider all the above four decision of the Tribunal before arriving at conclusion. Needless to say that the adjudicating authority will follow the principles of natural justice before coming to conclusion.
5. The adjudicating authority is directed to decide the issue within 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court) (H.K. Thakur) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) cbb ??
??
??
??
3