Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Suresh Synthetics

(Arising out of OIA-BC/283/SURAT-II/2011 dated 17.10.2011, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Surat)

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Surat : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

M/s. Suresh Synthetics : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Revenue : Shri Lalatendu Patra, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : None

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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 Departmental authorities?

Yes

CORAM :

Mr. P.K. Das, Honble Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 26.05.2015

ORDER No. A/10684 / 2015 Dated 26.05.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). None appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Visakhapatanam vs. Cairn Energy India Pvt. Limited  2013 (287) ELT 315 (Tri. Bang.).

2. The Tribunal after considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mill India  2007 (210) ELT 188 (S.C.), in the case of Bacha Motors (P) Limited vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad  2010 (255) ELT 530 (Tri. Ahmd.) held that the Commissioner (Appeals) has the powers to remand the matter. Para-4 of the said decision is relevant and reproduced below:-

4.? It was also submitted that in several decisions of the Tribunal, reliance was placed on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. MIL India Ltd. - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 188 (S.C.) to support the view that the Commissioner has no power to remand. After considering all these decisions, I find that in the case of M/s. MIL India, the main issue before Honble Supreme Court was entirely different and hence it was only observation during the course of discussion of the issue wherein Honble Supreme Court mentioned about the amendment of the Section. It cannot be said that Honble Supreme Court laid down the law in that case. Whereas in the case of M/s. Medico Lab, Honble Gujarat High Court was dealing with the issue of remand only and after considering the issue in detail, Honble High Court had come to the conclusion that the Commissioner has powers to remand. In view of the fact that there are contradictory decisions of the Tribunal and other than the decision of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana there is no other decision holding a contrary view to that of Honble Gujarat High Court in Medico Lab, I conclude that as far as Gujarat State is concerned, the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court is binding and accordingly Commissioner has power to remand the matter and therefore no interference is called for.

3. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial) .KL

4