Ludhiana vs M/S Kay Kay Hosiery Inc

[Arising out of OIA No.289/ce/Chd/06, dt.31.03.2006, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Chandigarh]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax,

Ludhiana Appellant

Vs

M/s Kay Kay Hosiery Inc. Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Singh, Authorised Representative

For Respondent: Shri Poojan Malhotra, Advocate

For approval and signature:

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

Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Honble Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No

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 of Seen

the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes

authorities?

CORAM:

MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

MR. P.S. PRUTHI, HONBLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision:22.01.2015

Final Order No.51106/2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. Ld.Advocate requested for adjournment as the arguing Counsel is out of town. As the matter is old one and after hearing the ld.Authorised Representative for the Revenue, we proceed to decide the appeal.

2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Readymade Garments classifiable under Chapter 62 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. A Show Cause Notice dt.12.08.2005 was issued, proposing the demand of CENVAT Credit alongwith interest and to impose penalty on the ground that the Respondent had wrongly availed CENVAT Credit on Yarns used in the manufacture of finished goods which were exported under Duty Draw Back Scheme. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order on the ground that the demand raised and confirmed against the Respondent is barred by limitation. Revenue in the grounds of appeal stated that the Respondent availed CENVAT Credit and Drawback benefit simultaneously, which is not permissible under the law. It is contended that the Central Excise (Preventive) officers during their visit, after scrutinizing the records, detected some irregularity. Therefore, the extended period of limitation would be invoked. On perusal of the adjudication order, we find that this issue was not raised before the Adjudicating Authority. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not examined this issue and materials on records. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the grounds of appeal as raised by the Revenue before the Tribunal.

3. The appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed by of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.S. Pruthi) (P.K. Das)

Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb

2