M/S. Jct Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise
- CitationExcise Appeal No. 2924 of 2006
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) may, on finding that a deduction is admissible in principle, direct the jurisdictional authority merely to verify the facts needed to give effect to it, without thereby remanding the matter for fresh adjudication; where the appellate order gives a clear finding on admissibility and the remand is confined to verification, no infirmity arises and the order is to be upheld.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 232/CE/APL/JAL/2006 dated 21.07.2006 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Jalandhar (Hq at Chandigarh)]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran , Member (Technical)
1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the 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 the Order?
4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
M/s. JCT Ltd. Appellants
Vs.
Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent
Jallandhar ( Hq at Chandigarh)
Appearance:
None for the Appellants
Shri M S Negi, AR for the Respondent
CORAM:
Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing /decision: 8.7.2015
FINAL ORDER NO. A/52255 /2015-EX(DB)
Per Ashok Jindal :
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that deduction on account of transit insurance charges shall be admissible to the appellants subject to verification by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and he reduced the penalty.
2. None appeared on behalf of the appellant but appellant has filed written submissions for deciding the appeal. Same are taken on record and considered.
3. The contention of the appellant is that Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority, therefore impugned order is to be set aside.
4. We have perused the impugned order wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) has sent the matter to the Assistant Commissioner only for verification purpose after giving clear cut finding that deduction on account of transit insurance charges shall be admissible to the appellant. In these terms, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Same is upheld. Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
( Dictated and pronounced in the open court )
( Ashok Jindal ) Member(Judicial)
( B Ravichandran )
Member(Technical)
ss
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