C.C.E. & S.T. Delhi-Iii vs M/S. Neel Metal Products Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. E/57879/2013-EX(SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Revenue's appeal was dismissed without any consideration of the merits; the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s order because the Revenue had not contested the limitation ground. That is a bare disposal resting on a procedural default rather than a stated principle of law, and the only reasoning the text carries is the observation that a ground not challenged on appeal stands unchallenged. Since the order decides nothing beyond that default, there is no ratio to extract in the sense of a rule of law. NO_RATIO: the appeal was dismissed solely because the Revenue did not challenge the limitation finding, and the order states no general principle of law beyond that procedural observation.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 75/SVS/GGN/2013 dated 11.02.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals), Gurgaon].
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri 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?
C.C.E. & S.T. Delhi-III .Appellants
Vs.
M/s. Neel Metal Products Ltd. .Respondent
Appearance:
Shri V.P. Batra, DR for the Appellants
Shri S.K. Pahwa, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing: 30.04.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 51496/2015-EX(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal:
Heard the parties and perused the impugned order.
2. On perusal of the order I find that Ld. Commissioner (A) has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground of limitation as audit was conducted in the premises of the respondent during the period 2007-08 and a show cause notice was issued to the respondent to deny Cenvat Credit. Later on, on the basis of the same audit another show cause notice was issued (which is impugned in the proceedings) and same was set aside by the Ld. Commissioner (A) holding that the facts were known to the department during the course of the audit itself. Therefore, second show cause notice cannot be issued by invoking extended period of limitation. Relying on the decision in the case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. C.C.E. Andhra Pradesh-2006 (197) E.L.T. 465 (SC). Against the said order Revenue is in appeal. But Revenue has not challenged the order on limitation.
3. As Revenue has not contested the impugned order on limitation aspect, therefore, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
Bhanu
2
E/57879/2013-EX(SM)
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