Commissioners Of Central Excise vs M/S Atul Limited
- CitationAppeal No. : E/1881/2009
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a later appeal raises the same issue as an earlier decision on the same appellant, the Tribunal will follow that earlier decision and set aside the first appellate order, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh in light of it, with an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-KS/226/SRT-II/2009 dtd 30.9.2009 Passed by Commi-ssioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II ]
Commissioners of Central Excise - Appellant (s) Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-II
Vs.
M/s Atul Limited - Respondent(s)
Represented by
For Assessee : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative For Revenue : Shri R H Shah, Senior Manager
For approval and signature :
Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble Member (Technical)
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. H.K. Thakur, Hon.ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 12/6/2015
ORDER No. A/10801 / 2015 dtd 12/6/2015
Per : Mr. H K Thakur;
When this appeal was called out for hearing, Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that the issue involved in the present proceedings is admissibility of cenvat Credit on various items like MS Grating, TMT Bar Channels, Angle, Plate, Beams, HR Coil, MS Sheets etc. which are used in the manufacture of support structure and repairs of equipments. Shri Rakesh H Shah, Sr. Manager of the appellant brought to the notice of this Bench, Order No A/11529-11530/2014 dated 22.8.2014 in appeal No. E/175,365/2011 where the demand for the extended period has been set aside and demand for the limitation period has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the Cenvat Credit pertaining to inputs used in the structure and those used in the repair of machinery/equipments.
2. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The same issue, in the case of the appellant has been remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to ascertain the quantum of Cenvat Credit pertaining to items used in making support structures. I have no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the order passed by the First Appellate Authority is set aside and this case also is remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide this case also in the light of the order dated 22.8.2014 passed in the case of appellant on the same issue. Needless to say that an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant before deciding the case in denevo proceedings.
3. Appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Appeal disposed of.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(H.K. Thakur) Member (Technical)
swami ??
??
??
??
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