Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-I vs Special Prints Ltd on 19 October, 2015
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Zonal Bench, Ahmedabad ^^^ Appeal No. : E/172/2008-DB [ Arising out of OIO-07/DEM/2007 Dated 31/10/2007 Passed by Commissioners of Central Exise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I] C.C.E. & S.T.-Surat-i : Appellant(s) Vs Special Prints Ltd : Respondent (s)
Represented by Appellant(s) : Shri Alok Srivastava (Authrorised Representative) Respondent (s) : Shri Willingdon Christian (Advocate) For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) 1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No 2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
No 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing / Decision : 19/10/2015 ORDER No. A/11677/2015 Dated: 19/10/2015 Per : Mr. P.K. Das, After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the respondent was engaged in the manufacture of POY and Texturised Yarn and Processed Fabrics MMF (P). By the impugned Adjudication Order NO. 7/DEM/2007 Dated 31/10/2007, the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat-I confirmed demand of Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 1,15,69,931.00 for the period from October 1998 to 15 December 1998 and allowed deemed credit to the extent of Rs. 80,98,995.00. It is demanded interest and imposed penalty and redemption fine in lieu of confiscation on the respondent. It has dropped the penalty under Rule 173Q (1) of the Central Excise Rule 1944 on M/s Garden Silk Mills Ltd. The respondent filed appeal against the impugned Order before the Tribunal being Appeal No. B/1328/2007. Revenue also filed the present appeal against the impugned order to the extent of allowing of deemed credit and demand of interest and penalty.
2. We find that the appeal filed by respondent has already been decided by the Tribunal by Final Order No. A/1536-1540/WZB/AHD/2010 dated 08/09/2010 and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Surat-I by Order in Original No. 25/DEM/2012 dated 23/01/2013 passed the order in de-novo adjudication in terms of the Tribunal Order dated 08/09/2010. In the de-novo adjudication, the adjudicating authority again confirmed the demand of duty of Rs. 1,15,69,931.00 with along interest and imposed penalty. The respondent again filed appeal no. E/11023,11036,11046,11085/2013 before this Tribunal. By Final Order No. 10835-10838/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 09/07/2013, M/13219-13222/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 09/07/2013, the Tribunal again remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for de-novo adjudication. The relevant portion of the said Order dated 09/07/2013 of the Tribunal is reproduced below:
It is settled law that when the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority, what remains is the show cause notice and the adjudicating authority has to evaluate the allegations in the show cause notice, vis-a-vis evidences which are produced by the assessee in defence and come to a conclusion independently uninfluenced by any of the findings recorded by predecessor adjudicating authorities. This cardinal principal of jurisprudence has been given a go by the adjudicating authority in these appeals. In view of this, the adjudication orders in our view are to be considered as orders which have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and also not following the remand proceedings of the higher judicial fora, on these ground itself all the adjudication orders ought to be held as unsustainable; but in order to meet the ends of justice, we find it fit to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh in light of the direction given by us in our remand order dated 08.09.11. We make it specifically clear that the adjudicating authority will record conclusive findings after considering the submissions made by the assessee before him.
3. On a query from the bench, the Learned Advocate on behalf of the Respondent submits that the de-novo adjudication in terms of the Tribunal order dated 09/07/2013 is still pending before the adjudicating authority. We find that the deemed credit allowed by the adjudication authority in the impugned order is in relation to the demand of Rs. 1,15,69,931.00, which is pending before the adjudication authority for de-novo adjudication. Hence, it is appropriate that the present appeal of the Revenue should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide a fresh in de-novo adjudication.
4. In view of the above, we direct the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of deemed credit with along interest and penalty in the present appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal, in de-novo adjudication in connection with Final Order dated 09/07/2013 of the Tribunal The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by the way of demand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M.Saleem) (P.K. Das)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Abhishek
??
??
??
??
2