2018 (5) TMI 287 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and N/N. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 - duty on waste of partially oriental yarn (POY) Polyster Staple Fibre (PSF) - Held that - this Tribunal following its earlier order in the case of M/s. Khodiar Fibrefill and others 2015 (6) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , allowed the benefit of Notification in respect of POY and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the demand of duty on waste of POY and PSF vide M/s Alliance Fibres Ltd Versus Commissioner of C. Ex. & Service Tax, Surat-II 2016 (3) TMI 564 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 on finished goods of POY.
2. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 89/95-CE dated 18.05.1995 on waste and scrap of POY and PSF.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Surat-II. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing partially oriental yarn (POY) Polyster Staple Fibre (PSF) and waste falling under specific tariff headings, were denied the benefit of certain notifications related to finished goods of POY and waste and scrap of POY and PSF. The appellant argued that a previous order by the Tribunal in a related case had allowed the benefit of the notification in respect of POY and remanded the matter to examine the demand of duty on waste of POY and PSF.

The Tribunal noted that on similar facts and circumstances, it had previously allowed the benefit of the notification in respect of POY and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to examine the demand of duty on waste of POY and PSF. The Tribunal set aside the demand of duty along with interest on POY and penalties, directing the adjudicating authority to properly examine the demand of duty on waste of POY and PSF in accordance with the earlier Tribunal order. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating authority must provide a proper opportunity of hearing before passing the order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, and an early hearing application was dismissed as infructuous.

In line with the precedent set by the previous order, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the case considering the observations made in the judgment. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring a fair examination of the issues raised by the appellant. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court, providing clarity and direction for further proceedings in the case.