Cce, Delhi-I vs Mr.Jelle Wiebe Nizdam, Counsellor
- Case No.Appeal No.E/52953/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand a matter to the adjudicating authority, the power of remand having been withdrawn from the Commissioner (Appeals) with effect from 11 May 2001 by the Finance Act, 2001. Notwithstanding the absence of such power, the Tribunal may itself remand the matter to the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice, directing a fresh decision on the merits within a fixed period.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIO No.09/CE/DLH/2014 dt,14,2,2014 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Delhi-I)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 07.05.2015
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
CCE, Delhi-I Appellant
Vs.
Mr.Jelle Wiebe Nizdam, Counsellor, Respondent
Embassy of Netherlands
Present for the Appellant: Shri Devender Singh, AR
Present for the Respondent: Ms.Reena Kshetrapal, Senior
Coordinating General Affair Officer
Coram: Honble Mr.Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
FINAL ORDER NO.51548/2015
PER: ASHOK JINDAL
The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside.
2. Heard the parties and considered the submissions.
3. It is admitted position that as per Finance Act, 2001, the power of remand has been taken away from the Commissioner (Appeals) with effect from 11.5.2001. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the adjudicating authority has not discussed the merit of the case in the light of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Meerut-II vs. Honda Seil Power Products Ltd.-2013 (287) ELT 353 (Tri.-Del.). Therefore, the matter has been remanded back to the Adjudicating authority by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. As the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the mater to the adjudicating authority but in the interest of justice, I remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
5. With these terms, the appeal is disposed. The Cross objection is also disposed of. The order to be given DASTI to the respondent.
(Dictated & Pronounced in the open court)
(ASHOK JINDAL)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
mk
3 3
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