2015 (10) TMI 2825 - AT - Central Excise

Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra, in view of the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Vs. World Vision 2010 (10) TMI 894 - DELHI HIGH COURT . The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Associated Hotels Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 406 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT held that the Commissioner (Appeals) have power to remand the matter. All the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. Early Hearing application is rejected as infructuous.

Summary

Issues:
1. Early hearing application filed by the assessee.
2. Power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application for early hearing of the appeals, which was considered by the Tribunal. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to take up the appeal for hearing at that stage with the consent of the parties. This shows that the Tribunal acknowledged the request for early hearing and proceeded accordingly.

2. The main issue in this case revolved around the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging this remand on the grounds that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not have the power to remand the matter. However, the Tribunal referred to previous legal decisions to support its ruling. It cited a decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, which established that the Commissioner (Appeals) indeed had the authority to remand the matter. Based on this legal precedent, the Tribunal dismissed all the appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the power of the Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and dismissed them, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s power to remand the matter. The early hearing application was also rejected as infructuous. This judgment provides clarity on the authority of the Commissioner (Appeals) in remanding matters and highlights the importance of legal precedents in making such determinations.