Cce, Ludhiana vs Auto Industries

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.112-115/APPL/CUS (D) Camp Chd. 2013-14 dated 28.03.2014 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana].]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, 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?

__________________________________________________

CCE, Ludhiana Appellant

Vs.

M/s. International Engineers

Lotia Auto Industries,

Navyug Industries,

Auto Industries  Respondent

Present for the Appellant : Shri G.R. Singh (DR)

Present for the Respondent: None

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 21.05.2015

Final ORDER NO. 51765-51768/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

Revenue is in appeal against the impugned orders dated 28th March, 2014 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh. The grounds of appeal as per the appeal memorandum is that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not vested with the power to remand the case to the lower adjudicating authority, in view of amendment of section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act by the Finance Act 2001 (Act No.14 of 2001) dated 11.05.2001. Since the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand and in the impugned order the matter has been remanded to the original authority for verification of certain relevant facts, the Revenues contention is that the said order is not legal and proper.

2. Ld. DR appearing from the Revenue relies on the judgment delivered by the Honble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CCE, Jalandhar vs. B.C. Kataria reported in 2008 (221) ELT 508 ( P & H) to support the stand of Revenue in this appeal. None appeared for the respondent despite issuance of notice for hearing.

3. Heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record.

4. I find that after the amendment of section 35 A (3) of the Central Excise Act, no powers have been vested with the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the case to the original authority. In the present case, since the matter has been remanded in the impugned order for verification of the relevant facts to the lower authority, I am of the view that the said order is not legal and proper, in terms of the amended provisions of section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act. Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is allowed by setting aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding the appeal afresh on the basis of available records.

5. The appeals are disposed of in above terms.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2