Avon Steels India vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 52954 & 52955 of 2014-Ex (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal holds that where the demand of duty and the imposition of penalty against one party depend on proceedings still pending against a related party, the impugned order passed in that situation is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority to be decided together with the pending proceedings against the related party.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 10-12/CE/APPL/DLH-IV/2014 dated 26.02.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Faridabad]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Avon Steels India Appellants
Arvind Tiwari
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Delhi IV
Appearance:
Shri N K Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri R K Mishra, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 26.02.2015
ORDER NO. FO/ A 50553-50554 /2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
Appellants are in appeal along with stay applications.
2. Heard the parties.
3. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is that as proceedings against M/s Jawala Steel Corporation is still pending, therefore the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the appellant are pre mature. In these circumstances, impugned order is required to be set aside and matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the defence of the appellant along with the proceedings against M/s Jawala Steel Corporation. In these circumstances, it is prayed that matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority.
4. I find that proceedings against M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation is pending before the Adjudicating Authority and in similar type of case vide order No.A/54715-54732/2014/SM(BR) dated 10/12/2014 this Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the matter along with case of M/s Jawala Steel Corporation. Therefore, in this case also, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate this matter also along with the case of M/s Jawala Steel Corporation.
5. In view of this, the stay petitions and appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free