Commissioner Of Central Excise vs M/S. Garg Concast Ltd
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 59729 - 59736 of 2013- (SM)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power, with effect from 10 May 2001, to set aside an adjudication order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision, as held in MIL India Ltd. v. CCE, Noida, and an order of remand made in contravention of that limitation is impermissible. Notwithstanding the impermissibility of such a remand, the Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority in the interest of justice, where the remand is directed to securing compliance with the principles of natural justice, namely the supply of legible copies of relied-upon documents and an opportunity for cross-examination of the persons requested.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. CCA/CHD/44-50/ 2013 dated 31/05/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ludhiana]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr 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?
Commissioner of Central Excise. Appellants
& ST, Ludhiana
Vs.
M/s. Garg Concast Ltd. Respondent
Shri N D Garg Director
Shri Vinod Garg Director
Shri Mohd Ikhlaq Director
Shri Parveen Kumar
Shri G C Arya
Shri Samir Anand, Director
M/s. G L Khanna and Sons
Appearance:
Shri V P Batra, AR for the Appellants
Shri Kamaljeet Singh , Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Date of Hearing /decision: 26.2.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/50629-50636/2015-Ex(SM)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (appeals) set aside the order of adjudication and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority to provide legible copy of document to the respondent and allow respondent to cross examine the persons requested before deciding the case with the outcome of examination of the persons requested on the ground that with effect from 10.5.01 learned Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. To support the contention they relied on the decision of Honble Apex Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. vs. CCE, NOIDA [2007 (210) ELT 188 (SC)].
2. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.
3. In this case, although the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority and same is not permissible in the light of MIL India Ltd. (supra). But in the interest of justice, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after providing the legible copy of documents to the respondents and after allowing cross examination to the respondents of the persons requested and thereafter to decide the matter in accordance with the law. In these terms appeals are disposed of.
(dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
ss
??
??
??
??
2
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