2016 (1) TMI 966 - HC - Central Excise

Cenvat / Modvat Credit of duty paid by the 100% EOU - tribunal in 2007 (8) TMI 524 - CESTAT, CHENNAI allowed the credit following its decision in the case of VIKRAM ISPAT 2000 (8) TMI 111 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - Held that - it has been stated that the main issue relating to the interpretation of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, had not been gone into by the Tribunal, while passing its impugned order - matter remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the issue relating to the applicability of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by taking into consideration the notification No.27/2000-CE (NT), dated 31.3.2000.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 based on a specific notification.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal where the appellant challenged an order passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, which set aside a previous order by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Tribunal's decision was based on a judgment in the case of VIKRAM ISPAT Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-III. The appellant contended that the main issue regarding the interpretation of Rule 57AB of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, was not addressed by the Tribunal in its order dated 3.8.2007, considering a specific notification (No.27/2000-CE (NT), dated 31.3.2000).

The counsel for the first respondent did not refute the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration of the issue related to the applicability of Rule 57AB in light of the notification mentioned. The Tribunal was directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law as soon as possible. Notably, since the particular issue had not been raised before the Tribunal by either party, both the appellant and the first respondent were granted the opportunity to present all relevant grounds during the appeal hearing.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was disposed of with the above directions, emphasizing the need for the Tribunal to revisit the issue of Rule 57AB interpretation in connection with the specified notification. The judgment highlights the importance of addressing all relevant legal grounds during the appellate process and ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments before the Tribunal.