9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 276 - AT - Central ExciseFixation of Annual Capacity of Production - appellant has sought benefit of Trade Notice No. 18/1998, dated 7-4-1998 issued by one of three Commissionerates in Hyderabad - Commissioner (Appeals) denying benefit on the ground that enquiries conducted at Hyderabad Commissionerates reveal that the said Trade Notice is in respect of service tax - same Trade Notice stands taken note in CESTAT judgment so Commissioner (A) was not justified in denying benefit on basis of report given, by one Commissionerate in Hyderabad without actually making serious efforts to find out the fact of issuance of the same by the Hyderabad Commissionerate and publishing of the same in journal
Issues:
Dispute over fixation of Annual Capacity of Production; Benefit of Trade Notice No. 18/1998 not extended by Commissioner (Appeals). Analysis: The dispute in this case revolves around the fixation of Annual Capacity of Production and the appellant's claim for the benefit of Trade Notice No. 18/1998. The Tribunal had previously acknowledged this Trade Notice in a prior decision. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not extend the benefit of the Trade Notice to the appellant, citing that the Trade Notice pertained to service tax based on inquiries conducted at Hyderabad Commissionerates. The appellant argued that there was no explanation from the Hyderabad Commissionerate regarding the issuance of the Trade Notice, which had already been recognized by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that the Trade Notice in question may have been issued by a different Commissionerate within Hyderabad, and it was unjustified for the Commissioner (Appeals) to dismiss its relevance solely based on a report without thorough verification. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to verify the issuance of the Trade Notice and consider the Tribunal's previous decision. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.
|
