M/S Vardhman Fabrics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioners Of Central Excise
- CitationAppeal No. : E/938,939/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal held that where the assessee does not contest the merits of the duty, interest and penalty demanded, the only live question is whether it is entitled to cum-duty benefit in quantifying the demand; that question, being one of admissibility on which the parties had relied on conflicting case law, is to be decided by the adjudicating authority after affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing, and the Tribunal therefore set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh decision on that issue.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[ Arising out of OIA-RS/135-136/SRT-I/07 dtd 10.5.2007 Passed by commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I ]
1. M/s Vardhman Fabrics Pvt Ltd 2. Shri Motilal Kasturchand Shah - Appellant(s)
Vs
Commissioners of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-SURAT-I - Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Assessee : Shri Gheewala, Advocate For Revenue : Shri J Nair, Authorised Representative
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
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, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, Honble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing / Decision : 16/9/2015
ORDER No. A/11370-11371/2015 dtd 16/9/2015
Per : Mr.P.K. Das,
Both the appeals arising out of a common order and therefore they are taken up together for disposal.
2. Heard both the sides and perused the records.
3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant fairly submits that they are not contesting the demand of duty alongwith interest and penalty on merit. He submits that they are entitled to cum-duty benefit while quantification of the demand. He further submits that the penalty imposed on the Director cannot be sustained. He relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mamta Silk Mills Pvt Ltd & Another vs CST, Surat in the Final Order NO A/10086-10087/2014 dtd 28.1.2014.
4. On perusal of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Mamta Silk Mills Pvt Ltd (Supra), we find that the Tribunal on the identical situation remanded the matter to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue of admissibility of cum-duty benefit to the appellant in view of the case law relied upon by the parties.
5. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the claim of cum-duty benefit and decide afresh. Needless to say that the Adjudicating Authority shall give proper opportunity of hearing before decision. Both the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
swami ??
??
??
??
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