2008 (4) TMI 583 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to jurisdictional challenges in two appeals of the Revenue and one appeal of the assessee regarding duty liability and SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/99-C.E.

Revenue's Appeal No. E/422/2001:
The Deputy Commissioner confirmed duty demand against the assessee, which was later vacated by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue challenged the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal found the jurisdictional objection raised by the Revenue to be unsustainable based on facts and legal precedents. Thus, Appeal No. E/422/2001 was dismissed.

Revenue's Appeal No. E/7/2002:
The Revenue's appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 108/2000, which set aside the duty demand confirmed by the original authority. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as it did not raise any substantial issue on merits against the assessee and failed to challenge the jurisdictional issue effectively. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on legal precedents, including the ruling in Pahwa Chemicals case, leading to the dismissal of Appeal No. E/7/2002.

Assessee's Appeal:
The assessee's appeal was against a duty demand for a specific period where SSI exemption was denied initially but later granted by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal found in favor of the assessee, stating that once the benefit was granted for a period, it cannot be denied for subsequent periods. The Tribunal also referred to decisions by the Tribunal's Larger Bench supporting the assessee's position. Consequently, the appellate Commissioner's order was set aside, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI dealt with jurisdictional challenges in appeals related to duty liability and SSI benefit, ultimately dismissing the Revenue's appeals while allowing the assessee's appeal based on legal precedents and factual considerations.