New Vishwkarma Autotech Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal24 February 2015

CitationExcise Appeal No. 50374, 50375 & 50376 of 2014-Ex (SM)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The impugned adjudication order cannot stand where the demand of duty and penalty against the appellant is premature while proceedings against a related manufacturer, on whose clearances the demand rests, remain pending before the adjudicating authority; in such circumstances the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to be decided together with the related proceedings, so that the appellant's defence is considered alongside them.

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

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAXAPPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHIPRINCIPAL BENCH, COURT NO. II

Excise Appeal No. 50374, 50375 & 50376 of 2014-Ex (SM)

Excise Stay Application No. 50482, 50483, 50484 of 2013-SM

[Arising out of Order-In-Appeal No. 135-138/CE/APPL/LH-IV/2013 dated 1.10.2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Faridabad]

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

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?

New Vishwkarma Autotech Pvt. Ltd. Appellants

Rajneesh Deora

Natraj Enterprises

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise Respondent

Delhi IV

Appearance:

Shri N K Sharma, Advocate for the Appellants

Shri V P Batra, AR for the Respondent

CORAM:

Hon'ble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Date of Hearing /decision: 24.02.2015

ORDER NO. FO/ A 50463-50465 /2015-Ex(SM)

Per Ashok Jindal :

Appellants are in appeal along with stay applications.

2. Heard the parties.

3. The contention of the Ld. Counsel is that as proceedings against M/s Jawala Steel Corporation is still pending, therefore the demand of duty and imposition of penalty on the appellant are pre mature. In these circumstances, impugned order is required to be set aside and matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for consideration of the defence of the appellant along with the proceedings against M/s Jawala Steel Corporation. In these circumstances, it is prayed that matter be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority.

4. I find that proceedings against M/s. Jawala Steel Corporation is pending before the Adjudicating Authority and in similar type of case vide order No.A/54715-54732/2014/SM(BR) dated 10/12/2014 this Tribunal has remanded back the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to adjudicate the matter along with case of M/s Jawala Steel Corporation. Therefore, in this case also, I set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to adjudicate this matter also along with the case of M/s Jawala Steel Corporation.

5. In view of this, the stay petitions and appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

(dictated and pronounced in the open court )

( Ashok Jindal ) 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