Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Purolator India Ltd vs Cce, Delhi-Iii on 25 May, 2016
Customs, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160 017 Division Bench COURT NO.1 Excise Appeal No. E/3797/2006 [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No.06/2006-CE dated 31.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi-III] Date of Hearing/Decision: 25.05.2016 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) 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 would be released under Rule 27 of the 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 Department Authorities? Yes M/s Purolator India Ltd. Appellant Vs. CCE, DELHI-III Respondent
Appearance Ms. Swati Gupta, Advocate for the appellant Mr. R.K. Mishra, A.R for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO: 60145/2016 Per Ashok Jindal:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order dated 31.08.2006.
2. This is the second round of litigation. In earlier round of litigation vide order in original dated 31.12.2003, the demand of Rs. 44,66,247/- was confirmed against the appellant. The said order was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.2004 remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority on three issues out of four issues. As against one issue, it was held against the appellant. The said order was challenged by the appellant before the Honble Apex Court. The Honble Apex Court vide order dated 25.08.2015 reported in 2015-323 ELT 227 (SC) has remanded all the issues to the adjudicating order for de-novo adjudication.
3. After considering the submissions made by the Ld. Counsel, we find that before the Honble Apex Court, the earlier order of this tribunal had already been challenged by the appellant and the same has been disposed by Apex Court. In that circumstances, the proceedings held against the appellant in remand vide order dated 31.08.2006 have been become nonest. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue as per direction of the Honble Apex Court vide order dated 25.08.2006.
The appeal is disposed off by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Raju Ashok Jindal
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
rt
1