M/S Universal Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ...

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal14 July 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. E/1167 & 1093/10

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The refund claim of Rs. 3,08,564/- for the period 16.12.1998 to 31.05.1999, having been fully adjudicated in favour of the assessee by a speaking order-in-original, cannot properly be set aside in appeal; the findings of the original authority on that claim are restored and upheld. Where a claim has not been fully adjudicated by the original authority, the appellate authority is right to set it aside, and the claim is to be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh decision in light of the Tribunal's earlier directions.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVECE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. IV

APPEAL NO. E/1167 & 1093/10

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. YDB/173/MII/2010 dated 29.03.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-II.)

For approval and signature: Honble Shri Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial)

=====================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?

=====================================================

M/s Universal Knitting Mills Pvt. Ltd.

: Appellant Versus

Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-II : Respondent

Appearance Ms. Rinkey Jassuja, C.A. : For Appellant Shri Sanjay Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) : For Respondent

CORAM:

HONBLE SHRI ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing : 13.07.2015 Date of Decision: 13.07.2015

ORDER NO.......................................................

Per: Anil Choudhary:

Heard both sides.

2. I find that so far the refund of Rs. 3,08,564/- (for period 16.12.1998 to 31.05.1999) is concerned, the claim is full adjudicated in favour of assessee by a speaking Order-in-Original. The setting aside of this claim/issue vide Order-in-Appeal dated 29.03.2010 is bad. The findings in Order-in-Original are upheld.

3. As regards the other claim of Rs. 5,37,006/- the same was not fully adjudicated, and rightly set aside by learned Commissioner (Appeals). The said claim of Rs. 5,37,006/- (period 6/99 to 2/2000) is remanded to the file of the adjudicating authority and the same is to be decided afresh in view of earlier directions of this Tribunal dated 18.02.2008. Both appeals are allowed in part by way of remand.

(Pronounced in open Court)

(Anil Choudhary)

Member (Judicial)

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