M/S. Aditya Laminators Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIO-07/MP/DAMAN/2007 dated 06.08.2007, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, & S.T., Daman )

M/s. Aditya Laminators Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s) Shri Vivek C. Vaidya Shri Kaushik C. Pandya Shri Yogesh N. Desai

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Daman : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative

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 : 10.04.2015

ORDER No. A/10312-10315 / 2015 Dated 10.04.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore all are taken up together for disposal.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the main contention of the learned Advocate for the appellants is that the demand of duty was confirmed for the period June 1997 to January 1999, under Rule 57I of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is submitted that on the date of issue of Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2002, the provisions of Rule 57-I of the said Rules, 1944 was not in existence in the statute and the demand of Central Excise duty can not be confirmed under the erstwhile Central Excise Rules. In support of his contention, he relied upon various decisions, as under:-

(i) Sunrise Structurals & Engg. Limited & Ors. vs. CCE, Nagpur  Order NO. A/711 to 722/WZB/04.C.II dated 27.8.2004.

(ii) Milton Polyplast  Order No. A/633-635/WZB/2005/GIII/81 dated 27.5.2005 [2006 (201) ELT 372 (Tri. Mum.)]

(iii) Polyset Plastics Limited vs. CCE, Goa - Order No. A/1101/WZB/2005/CIII dated 11.7.2005

(iv) Surendra Engg. Co. Limited vs. CCE, Belapur - Order No. A/52/2007/C.I(EB) dated 05.01.2007.

(v) Dutta Metal Industries vs. CCE, Mumbai - Order No. A/77/2007/C.I/EB dated 11.01.2007

(vi) Tata Motors Limited vs. CCE, Pune - A/1973/2007/C-IV/SMB/WZB/2006 dated 30.10.2006.

(vii) Dow Chemical International Pvt. Limited vs. CCE  2008 (226) ELT 146

(viii) CCE, Mumbai vs. National Leather Cloth Mfg. Company  2009 (246) ELT 336

(ix) Acmechem Limited vs. CCE, Surat II A/11074 to 11077/WZB/AHD/2013 & M/14014 to 14017/WZB/AHD/2013 dated 22.08.2013.

3. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He further submits that this issue was not raised before the lower authorities. He also relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bee Am Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad  2014 (309) ELT 183 (Tri. Mum.). The learned Advocate for the appellants also contesting the demand on merits.

4. I find that the issue raised by the appellant was not raised before the lower authorities. Hence, it is appropriate that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority to examine the facts of law of the case in the interest of justice.

5. In view of the above discussion, the impugned orders are set-aside. Appeals are remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the facts and law of the case. Needless to say that the appellants would be given proper opportunity of hearing before decision. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.

6. The appellants also filed applications for extension of the stay, which are dismissed as infructuous.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the Court)

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

2