Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Calcutta
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs G.M.B. Ceramics Ltd. on 7 November, 2001
JUDGMENT
Archana Wadhwa
1. Vide the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue against the orders of the Asst. Commissioner vide which he had allowed the respondents to avail the benefit of notf. No. 1/93 w.e.f. 1.4.95. The Revenue's objection to the said approval of classification list was that once having opted for payment of duty on the final product with the modvat benefits, respondents could not revert back to the exemption under the said notf. No. 1/93. Commissioner (Appeals) did not find favour with the above stand of the Revenue and has rejected the appeal. Revenue is in appeal before us against the said order.
2. After carefully considering the legal position we find that the Tribunal in the case of Randhir Rolling Mills v. CCE, Allahabad-2000(124) ELT 1051(T) has held that as per para 5 of the notification, assessee can exercise the option only once in a financial year and once this option has been exercised, the duty has to be paid on all subsequent clearances of the goods and it is not open to the assessee to claim the benefit of the notification subsequently. Inasmuch as the said decision of the Tribunal has not been considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), we set aside the order of the appellate authority and remand the matter to the said authority for fresh decision after taking into consideration the above decision of the Tribunal and applying the ratio of the same to the facts of the instant case. Appeal of the Revenue is thus allowed by way of remand.
Dictated in the court.