Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. R.K. Silk Mills (India) Ltd vs C.C.E., Jaipur-I on 4 February, 2014
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066
Date of Hearing 04.02.2014
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, 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 Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No. E/94/2011 -EX[SM]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.416(DKV)CE/JPR-I/2010, dated 08.09.2010 passed by C.C.E.(Appeals), Jaipur-I]
M/s. R.K. Silk Mills (India) Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
C.C.E., Jaipur-I Respondent
Appearance Shri Bipin Garg, Advocate - for the appellants Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) Final Order No.__50419__, dated 04.02.2014 Per Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa :
After hearing both the sides at lengthy, I find that the matter was earlier remanded by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No.491/08-SM(BR), dated 18.12.2007 with deciding the disputed issue in favour of the assessee by directing the lower authorities to examine the records maintained by the appellants in Form V register or the other documents.
2. It is seen that the appellants did not produce the records before the original adjudicating authority but produced the photo copies of the said register and other records before the Commissioner (Appeals). In as much as the originals were not produced, the lower authorities rejected the appellants submissions.
3. The dispute is that as to whether the process made fabric in question was received back by the appellants from their customers as rejected goods and was cleared second time after carrying out the re-processing. As per the appellants, Form V register maintained by them has been lost but they have the photo copies of the said register. The Ld. Advocate submits that the fact that receipt of the defective and rejected goods from their customers can be established from other collateral evidences also. I agree with the above contention. The appellants can produce certificates from their customers to support their plea that the said goods were actually received back by them. They are also at liberty to place the other collateral evidences on record.
4. In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order and once again remand the matter back to the original adjudicating authority for doing the needful after giving an opportunity to the appellants to put-forth their case before them.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court) (Archana Wadhwa) Member (Judicial) SSK -3-