2009 (2) TMI 166 - AT - Central Excise

Excisable product burden of proof Supreme Court was of the view that the burden on the Department to prove that a new and distinct product had come in existence had not been discharged by the Department SC remanded the matter back to tribunal tribunal further remanded back the matter to commissioner to decide the issue

Summary

Issues involved:
Common issue involved in multiple appeals - remand back to Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the consideration of multiple appeals with a common issue. The appeals were taken up for hearing following an order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a related matter. The Supreme Court had set aside the Tribunal's order in light of certain distinctions pointed out in a previous order. The Supreme Court remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with the law. The impugned orders were set aside, and all contentions were left open. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.

In one of the cases, the Tribunal had allowed an appeal, but in view of the Supreme Court's decision and an application filed by the Revenue, the Tribunal recalled the earlier order and restored the appeals to their original numbers. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the matter had to be decided afresh in consideration of the Supreme Court's decision in a specific case. The issue of whether the goods in question were being manufactured within the definition of the Central Excise Act needed further examination as the Revenue contended that they were not given an opportunity to prove this. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision after considering the Supreme Court's decision.

Additionally, in some cases, the demand of duty was decided by the Deputy Commissioner while the classification of goods was decided by the Commissioner. The dispute primarily revolved around the excisability of the goods, which fell under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Central Excise. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner to decide all relevant issues, keeping them open for further consideration.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, the decisions made by the Supreme Court, and the subsequent actions taken by the Tribunal to ensure a fresh and thorough examination of the matters at hand in accordance with the law.