Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ...
- CitationAppeal No. 319-2006 dated 20/11/2006 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Visakhapatnam]
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The order rests on a procedural rule: where the Commissioner (Appeals) has partly remanded a matter for re-examination of CENVAT credit on balance inputs, and the appellant's counsel concedes that the inputs on which credit was denied should likewise be remanded with the Department's consent, the Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and remand the entire matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision together with the part already remanded.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 319-2006 dated 20/11/2006 passed by CC&CE(Appeals), Visakhapatnam]
For approval and signature:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
1 Whether Press Reporters 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 the 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
RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LTD VISAKAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise ,Customs and Service Tax VISAKHAPATNAM-I NULL CENTRAL EXCISE BUILDING PORT AREA VISAKHAPATNAM - 530035 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Harish R, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, Superintendent(AR) For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 10/09/2015
Date of Decision: 10/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21895 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
After hearing both the sides, we find that vide his impugned order, Commissioner(Appeals) has partly rejected the appeal by denying the benefit of CENVAT credit in respect of various inputs and has partly remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for re-examination of the availability of CENVAT credit in respect of the balance inputs.
2. Learned advocate submits that the items on which he has denied the credit have been held to be covered in terms of various decisions of the courts. However he fairly submits that inasmuch as the matter in respect of balance inputs has been remanded, the inputs involved in the appeal on which he has confirmed the duty may be remanded. Learned AR agrees to the proposal.
3. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority for fresh decision along with partly remanded matter by Commissioner(Appeals). Appeal is allowed in above manner. (Order pronounced and dictated in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
Raja.
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