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 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Sl Lumax Ltd on 10 November, 2009

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX 
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

 
E/124/2002

 
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 6/2002 (M-II) dated 12.02.2002, passed by the Commissioner of  Central Excise, (Appeals),  Chennai).


For approval and signature	

Honble Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member
Honble P.K. DAS, Judicial Member
_________________________________________________________ 
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  the Honble Member wishes to see the fair  	:      
       copy of the  Order.

4.    Whether order is to be circulated to the		 	:
       Departmental Authorities?  _________________________________________________________

CCE, Chennai						:	Appellant
 
		 Vs.

 M/s. SL Lumax Ltd.					:	Respondent 

Appearance Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR, for the appellant Shri C. Saravanan, Adv., for the respondent CORAM Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, Technical Member Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Date of hearing : 10.11.2009 Date of decision : 10.11.2009 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Chittaranjan Satapathy Heard both sides. Shri C. Saravanan, Ld. Advocate, appearing for the respondents states that the lower appellate authority had decided the case on merits in favour of the respondents and therefore had no occasion to go into the ground of limitation though the same was raised before him by the respondents. Subsequently, the Tribunal on an appeal from the department had decided the issue on merits against the respondents without going into the question of limitation. He also states that as per the order dated 28.04.09, passed by the Honble Madras High Court, the issue of limitation has to be gone into now.

2. Heard the Ld. JCDR.

3. Both sides agree that since the issue of limitation has not been considered earlier by the lower appellate authority, the matter should be remanded specifically for considering the issue of limitation. As such, we remand the matter to the lower appellate authority to specifically decide on the question of limitation, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both sides. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

  	(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)


						      					                      
      (P.K. DAS)			    (Dr. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY)              
JUDICIAL MEMBER		                   TECHNICAL MEMBER                  		   



BB






2