M/S Indica Industries Pvt.Ltd vs Cc Kandla
- CitationAppeal No.C/11963/2014-SM
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appellate authority has set aside an order and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication with directions to consider the observations made and to pass a speaking order after following the principles of natural justice, and no reason is shown to interfere with that remand, the Tribunal will not disturb the remand order and will leave the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim afresh. Where a party has filed a paper book before the Tribunal containing submissions relevant to the remand, the adjudicating authority is directed to consider those submissions, along with others, in the de novo adjudication in accordance with law.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
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:
MR. P.K. DAS, HONBLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Date of Hearing/Decision:02.01.15
Order No. A/10004 / 2015, dt.02.01.2015
Per: P.K. Das
1. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, I find that the adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim of Rs.1,19,851.00 (Special Additional Duty). Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter for denovo adjudication, afresh by considering the observation made him in the said order and to pass a suitable speaking order, by following the principles of natural justice within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. Learned Represenative Shri G.C. Prajapati representing the appellant submits that the issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in their favour. He has also filed Paper Book.
3. On the other hand, learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that there is a factual dispute, which would be considered by the Adjudicating authority, in the remand proceedings.
4. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter to decide afresh after considering his observations as well as the submissions of the appellant. Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant is rejected.
5. Learned Representative filed a paper book before the Tribunal. It is directed that the adjudicating authority would consider the submissions of the appellant as contained in the paper-book, amongst others, in de-novo adjudication in accordance with law.
(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)
(P.K. Das) Member (Judicial)
cbb
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