Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S. Jvs Export
- CitationAppeal No.126/2010
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The appellate authority, though possessing co-extensive and co-terminus powers with the adjudicating authority, may properly remit a matter for enquiry to the adjudicating authority where the enquiry required involves examination of a plethora of evidence in respect of several items and goes to the root of the matter, so that the party concerned is afforded an appropriate opportunity to explain its case at the original level.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.126/2010, dated 07.07.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli ]
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TIRUCHIRAPALLI APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. JVS EXPORT RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri M. Rammohan Rao, DC (AR)
For the Respondent Ms. S. Srivedi, Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 22-06-2015
FINAL ORDER NO. 40701 / 2015
The order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) shows that necessary enquiry is to be conducted at the level of Adjudicating authority. This is factually clear in paras 4.3 and 4.4 of his Order dated 07.07.2010. But Revenues grievance is that appellate authority should have decided at his level since he has co-extensive and co-terminus power.
2. Revenue is fully correct to argue insofar as the power of the appellate authority is concerned but the facts and circumstances shows that plethora of evidence is required to be examined in respect of several trucks which is depicted in para 4.4 as well as 6.2 of the appellate order. Since enquiry goes to the root of the matter, it would be proper for the Adjudicating authority to sort out litigation at the grass root level so that respondent get appropriate opportunity to explain its case. Accordingly, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) directing enquiry by Adjudicating authority is confirmed, for which, Revenue appeal is dismissed. In view of the disposal of the appeal above, cross objection stands disposed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 24-06-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 22.06.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing 24/06/2015
Fair Order Typing 24.06.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
4 ST/00641/2010 and ST/CO/00054/2010
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