Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S Aravind Murjani Brands Pvt Limited on 22 April, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH CODRT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE __
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF APRIL. 2010 V 1'
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE KL:
AND 1 A .2 A .
THE HONBLE MRS. JUS"1'ICfE..13.V.NAV¢A.RATHV'?1;'.J 3
C.E.A No.36 OFE2{§:07V_
BETWEEN:
THE COMMISSIONER OI*'CEN'I'RA_L_ "E E
BANGALORE 1 COMM1SS1ONERA"1'E' ' »
CRBUILDINGS. "
QUEEN'S ROAD _ 2
BANG«ALORE--56000i
*4
[By S;-1.RAOP1Av_EDNRA:E; R BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
M_,.rS ARAWND N§URJAN'E«--_BRANE)S PVT LIMITED
NO.7'v,..SY.'NO.4S/3_»1¢1ONOASANDRA VILLAGE
BEG{JRHQB1,1 , 4 ' _
BAN'GAI.QR;E*Z¥6--8 'A .2 .2 '
RESPONDENT
_ gay .S1-LR S" RA"V;'.1VSP1_ANKAR. ADVOCATE] 'A{'{;IEE'S_' C.E.A IS FILED U/S.35G OF' THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT. 194;4--A.R1S_1:\IG OUT OF ORDER DATED 10--08«2006 PASSED 1N E1NAL ' 'ij~-ORDER NOE353/O6 IN APPEAL NOE/403/06. PRAYING THAT THIS ._ E R.O'N1E--1'.E COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO: 1. TO D.EC1DE*1'HE QUESTION .OE=1,Aw AS STATED '1'{~1EREZ1N. 11. CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET 'R/,.
ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER NQ1353/2006 DATED '10wO8--2006 PASSED BY THE CES'i_'AT SZB, BANGALORE. IN APPEAL NOE/403/OE'}"'.BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL. IN THE IN'1'ERES"I' OF JUS'I'IC€. EQUITY.
THIS C.E.A. COMING ow FOR FINAL HEAR11>1.r.:frH3sf'oA?,"é D NAGARATHNA J. DELIVERED TI-IE FOLLCIWIN.G:
J U D G M 1: N * The Revenue has preferred in aopeal' " D the order: dated 10V.0E3'.20G6" 'A.'vr_:'pe{s'-aged 'in Appeal No.Excise/403/2006/Final by raising the following substanttai' by this Court on 4.7.2007 whiie '
2. Wexhave 1o'ee.rfd"1e*a:f_n'er§ counsel for the appellant Revenue and ViVear1ie'd:D}eour1se1 for the respondent Assessee»; ' 'e..,3.._tDuri:1*1~g "the_]eourse of submissions. it is brought to notice that tAh'eDquestions of law raised in this appeal have answe1"ee1 in C.E.A.No.35/2007 by this Court disposed whereby the matter has been remanded back V Dto4Vthe'DTribunal to consider as to whether the circumstances- fy.
in which Section IIAB of the Central Excise Act, 1944- would apply and thereafter to come to a conclusion as to whether interest was leviable on the Assessee.
4. By following the said decision, we remanCl__jtl1.i's.lca.sc_l_f also to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue"-as to s:~'hVeLhei"the Tribunal was right in granting immnnityfitlom ground that the Assessee has paiclll"i'diilty p1'ior._tos t-helllvisslne of show cause notice and asiwto \_&rlhether.'.ltl1e circtiiristances mentioned in Section 1 IAB of to the facts of the present case-in A
5. Accordingly we'«set aside't;l1e"Qr(ler*' of the Tribunal and remand the matter for reconsideratioln without answering the substantial questions oflaw. lllll 1 Sd/ '5 JUDGE Sd /-
JUDGE