9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 39 - AT - Central ExciseValidity of order of remand - appellant /assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the order of remand is bad as the Commissioner (Appeals) is required to pass a reasoned order on merits, as required under Section 35 A (3) of the Act - HELD THAT - The issue herein is squarely covered in favour of the appellant in view of the precedent order of the Division Bench in the appellant s own case RATHI SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE, ALWAR. 2019 (4) TMI 2057 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that No evidence was led by the Department regarding use of raw material, electricity, sale of material or mode or transport nor any evidence was led to substantiate that the Appellant was using the same advanced technology as SAIL. The impugned demand is, therefore, not sustainable. This appeal is allowed.
Issues:
Confirmation of demand with interest and penalty under Section 11 AC (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act - Appeal against remand order by Commissioner (Appeals) - Appellant's contention on the requirement of a reasoned order on merits - Comparison with previous Tribunal orders - Allegation of misrepresentation as an ISO certified company. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial), addressed multiple issues. Initially, the Asstt. Commissioner's order confirming a demand of Rs.2,97,238/- along with interest and imposing a penalty of Rs.29,724 under Section 11 AC (1)(a) of the Central Excise Act was challenged. The appellant then appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a speaking order. The Commissioner directed the Adjudicating Authority to conduct inquiries or tests to ascertain yield by monitoring the manufacturing process with suitable safeguards. In the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the order of remand was flawed as the Commissioner (Appeals) was required to provide a reasoned order on merits as per Section 35 A (3) of the Act. The appellant argued that the facts of the case aligned with a previous Tribunal order, Final Order No.51429/2019, dated 15.04.2019, in their own case, Excise Appeal No.E/53820 of 2018 (DB). The Tribunal had previously ruled in favor of the appellant under similar circumstances, citing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of R.A. Castings Pvt. Ltd. and a precedent order of the Tribunal in H.R. Steels Pvt. Ltd. Moreover, the appellant raised an issue regarding the misrepresentation of being an ISO certified company by the lower court. After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Tribunal found that the matter was conclusively settled in favor of the appellant based on the precedent order of the Division Bench in the appellant's own case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted consequential benefits as per the law. The judgment was pronounced on 30.03.2022.
|
