M/S Guard Chemicals Pvt.Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal13 March 2015

CitationAppeal No.E/12851,12852/2014; E/Stay/15074,15075/2014

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where the impugned order dismissed the appeals for non-compliance with a stay order without first considering the stay applications on their merits, and the issue is prima facie covered by a binding High Court decision, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remand the stay applications to the first appellate authority for fresh consideration in light of that High Court decision.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate TribunalWest Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad

Appeal No.E/12851,12852/2014; E/Stay/15074,15075/2014 [Arising out of OIA No.DMN-EXCUS-000-APP-69 & 70/14-15, dt.06.06.2014, passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Daman

M/s Guard Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. Shri Ashish Kariwala Appellants

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Daman Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri D.K. Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent: Shri G.P. Thomas, A.R.

For approval and signature:

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

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 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:

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

Date of Hearing/Decision:13.03.2015

Order No. A/10226-10227 / 2015, dt.13.03.2015

Per: P.K. Das

1. As the issue involved in these appeals lies in narrow compass, after disposing the stay applications, the appeals are taken up for hearing.

2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the Appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Paper Tubes classifiable under Chapter 48 of the Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. There is a delay in discharging monthly duty during the month of April 2008 under Rule 8(3) of Central Excise Rules, 2002. The learned Advocate submits that during the defaulted period, they had paid the duty from their CENVAT account. He submits that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Indsur Global Ltd Vs UoI - 2014 (310) ELT 833 (Guj).

3. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for non-compliance of the stay order.

4. After considering the submissions of both the sides, I find that, prima facie, the issue is covered by the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Indsur Global Ltd (supra). Hence, it is appropriate that the matter should be re-examined by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide afresh the stay petitions, after considering the decision of Honble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Indsur Global Ltd.

5. The appeals are allowed by way of remand. The Stay Petitions are disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)

cbb

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