Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Commissioner Of Central Excise vs Srf Ltd. on 2 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(73)ECC119, 2001(127)ELT469(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER Lajja Ram, Member (T)
1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), the Commissioner (Appeals) following the Tribunals Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Limited as reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 835 had remanded the matter with the following observations :
"Therefore, in accordance with the ratio of the above observations of the CEGAT, I remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for granting credit to the extent of exports, after due verification."
2. The Revenue in their appeal had pleaded that the view taken by the appellate authority that MODVAT Credit was to be allowed to the extent the inputs contained in the 210 Denier yarn exported after due verification, did not flow from the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal relied upon by him. It was the Revenue's contention that the assessee had cleared 210 Denier yarn without payment of duty under Notification No. 27/95, dated 16-3-1995, without observing the procedure for export under the Notification. It was therefore, his case that as the goods were exempted unconditionally the clearance for export under bond is not even required and called for.
3. When the matter was called Shri Saravanan, learned Advocate has appeared for the respondents and submitted that the respondents had filed a cross objection. He further informed that after the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) no action has been taken by the department for re-deciding the issue and in the meanwhile some other show cause notice had been issued demanding duty at the intermediate stage in the matter of 210 Denier yarn of polyester chips.
4. Shri S. Kannan, appearing for the department submitted that when 210 Denier yarn was fully exempted from duty, it was not correct on the part of the appellate authority to direct the Assistant Commissioner to grant credit to the extent of exports.
5. We have considered the matter and we find that the remand order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) was in the nature of open remand as he has recorded that the credit was to be granted after due verification. Further he has followed the Larger Bench decision of the Tribunal as noted above and there is nothing on record to indicate that the observations of the Tribunal had been set aside by any superior forum.
6. As regards the proceedings subsequently initiated by the department, the same are not before us and we cannot take cognizance of the same at this stage.
7. In the facts and circumstances we find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and as a result, the Revenue appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the cross objection filed by the Respondents is also disposed of.