Well Fargo India Solutions Private ... vs Commissioner Of Customs ,Central ...
- CitationAppeal No. 23-2013 dated 18/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Ta
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Commissioner (Appeals) cannot confine a remand to verification of documents where the Tribunal has already decided the issues, including limitation, in a binding interim order in another case; in such circumstances the matter must be remanded on a blanket basis to be decided in accordance with the law laid down in that order.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ST/26983/2013-DB, ST/1842/2012-DB, ST/27258/2013-DB, ST/25889/2013-DB
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 23-2013 dated 18/02/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-II ]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 62-2012 dated 22/03/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-IV ]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 59-2012 dated 21/03/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax , HYDERABAD-( Appeals-iv) ]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 269-2012 dated 30/11/2012 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax (Appeals- II) HYDERABAD-]
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
Well Fargo India Solutions Private Limited 1a, Divyashree Nsl Infrastructure Private Limited, Sez Survey No. 66/1, Raidurga Village, Serilingapally Mandal, HYDERABAD - 500032 AP Appellant(s)
Versus
Commissioner of Customs ,Central Excise and Service Tax HYDERABAD-IV POSNETT BHAWAN, TILAK ROAD, RAMKOTI, HYDERABAD, - 500001 ANDHRA PRADESH Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. L.S. Karthikeyan, Adv For the Appellant
Mr. Mohammad Yusuf, A.R. For the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 01/09/2015
Date of Decision: 01/09/2015
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT ARCHANA WADHWA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR ARYA, TECHNICAL MEMBER
Final Order No. 21831-21834 / 2015
Per : ARCHANA WADHWA
The appellants refund claims in terms of Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules 2004 stands rejected by the lower authorities on various grounds including the ground of limitation. The Commissioner (Appeals) has remanded the matter after holding against the appellants on the point of limitation for verification of documents. The appellants contention is that the Tribunal in the case of Apotex Research Pvt Ltd Vs CCE vide Interim Order No. 79-152/2014 dated 29/-8/2-14 has discussed each and every issue and has opined on all the issues involved in the present appeals including the issue of limitation. As such we are of the view that the remand before original adjudicating authority would be a blanket remand to be decided in the light of the law laid down by the Tribunal in the above Interim Order. All the appeals are disposed of in above manner. (Order pronounced in open court)
ASHOK KUMAR ARYA TECHNICAL MEMBER ARCHANA WADHWA JUDICIAL MEMBER
pnr
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