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 2, Cited by 7]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Raipur vs M/S.Ultratech Cement Ltd on 22 October, 2010

        

 

	

CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, 
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
SINGLE MEMBER BENCH

Excise Appeal No.706 of 2009
Excise Appeal No.707 of 2009
Excise Appeal No.719 of 2009
Excise Appeal No.732 of 2009

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.32(ST)RPR-I/2008 dt. 26.11.08, No.155/RPR-I/2008 dt.15.12.08, 158/RPR-I/2008 dt.15.12.08 and No.03-04/RPR-II/2009  passed by the CCE(A), Raipur)

                                              Date of Hearing: 22.10.2010                    
   Date of Decision: 22.10.2010 

For approval and signature:
Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

                   
CCE, Raipur								Appellant

                        Vs.
       
1.M/s.Ultratech Cement Ltd.				       Respondent

2.M/s.Shree Banke Bihari Ispat (P) Ltd.

3.M/s.Indian Explosives Ltd.

4.M/s.Om Shakti Tobacco Co.

Present for the Appellant:     Shri  K.P.Singh, SDR
Present for the Respondent:  Shri  Hemant Bajaj, Advocate

Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
             

ORDER NO._______________

PER: ASHOK JINDAL 

The Revenue has filed these appeals against the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide issue.

2. The learned DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that with effect from 11.5.2001, the power of remand has been taken away from the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Finance Act, 2001. Hence, the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Accordingly, the impugned orders are to be set aside.

3. Heard and considered.

4. Considering the fact that that the power of remand has been taken way from the Commissioner (Appeals) as per Finance Act, 2001. With effect from 11.5.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot remand the case to the adjudicating authority. In fact, the Commissioner (Appeals) has to deal with the issue and decide the same. As held by the Apex Court in the case of MIL India vs. CCE, Nodia reported in 2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC), the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power of remand with effect from 11.5.2001. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned orders and the matters are remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue afresh after giving an opportunity to both sides to defend their case.

(Pronounced in the open court) (ASHOK JINDAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) mk 6 3