Cce, Nagpur vs M/S Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal10 June 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/924/10-Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration, because an identical issue involving the same assessee was already remanded by this Tribunal in an earlier decision, and the adjudicating authority must reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the directions in that earlier order.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAICOURT NO. IAppeal No. E/924/10-MumE/5/1041/10

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 70/NGP/2010 dated 22.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Customs, Nagpur].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

======================================================

CCE, Nagpur Appellant

Vs.

M/s Indorama Synthetics (I) Ltd. Respondent

Appearance:

Shri S. Hasija, Supdt. (AR) for Appellant

Shri Rajesh Ostwal, C.A. for Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 10.06.2015

Date of Decision: 10.06.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 70/NGP/2010 dated 22.02.2010 and is filed by the revenue.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the clearance of waste and scarp of various inputs and packing materials, arising after processing of the inputs and packing material for finished goods. Both sides submit that in the assessees own case in appeal No. E/1010/2009 and E/106/2010, this bench vide final Order dated 2-6-11 (as reported at 2011(271) ELT 551) has remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. It is the prayer that this matter also be remanded to the adjudicating authority.

4. On perusal of the cited decision, I find it so. Since identical issue is remanded back for de-novo adjudication, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh. The adjudicating authority shall follow the principles of natural justice before coming to any conclusion and as per directions of Tribunal in order dated 2nd June 2011.

5. The appeal is allowed by the way of remand to adjudicating authority.

(Dictated in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)

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