9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 1486 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of benefit of N/N. 230/86 dated 03.04.1986 - denial on the ground that the respondent was using power for transferring the material to over head tanks/barrels - HELD THAT - From the grounds of appeal of the department, it is noticed that no submissions have been made on the stand of the respondent and the findings of the lower authority that the issue involved in the present case being similar to earlier case, the decision of this Tribunal in SHALIMAR PAINTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA 2000 (5) TMI 141 - CEGAT, KOLKATA , as upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS RAJASTHAN STATE CHEMICAL WORKS 1991 (9) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT , would be binding on both sides. Since the Department in its appeal has not made any submission to distinguish the decision of this Tribunal, on facts, we are bound by the earlier decision of this Tribunal, especially when the appeal of the department was rejected by the Supreme Court. Therefore, without going into the submissions of the Department in its appeal, it is held that since the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the facts of the earlier case, the earlier decision given by the Tribunal is required to be followed. The appeal filed by the department is dismissed.
Issues:
Admissibility of exemption under Notification No.230/1986 dated 03.04.1986; Appeal by department against order granting exemption; Binding nature of earlier Tribunal decision upheld by Supreme Court; Time-barred demand; Imposition of penalty in classification issue. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved the admissibility of exemption under Notification No.230/1986 dated 03.04.1986. The department appealed against the order of the Commissioner dropping a total demand of Rs.1,26,86,591.00 for the period from 01.12.1991 to 28.02.1994. The respondent had been claiming exemption under the said notification for a considerable period. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case, the department's demand was rejected by the Tribunal and Supreme Court. The lower authority granted the benefit of exemption, following the Tribunal's decision in the respondent's case. The department's appeal did not differentiate the facts of the earlier case from the present one, making the Tribunal bound by the previous decision, especially since the Supreme Court had rejected the department's appeal. The department heavily relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Rajasthan State Chemical and Waxpol Industries. However, the Tribunal found that the department failed to distinguish the facts of the earlier case from the present one, making the appeal not maintainable. The respondent argued that the department incorrectly applied the Waxpol case to the present situation, emphasizing that the issue of power usage had already been settled in their favor. The Tribunal also noted that part of the demand was time-barred due to the recurring nature of the issue. Regarding the imposition of penalty, the respondent contended that in cases involving classification issues, penalties are not warranted, especially when the issue had been resolved in their favor previously. The Tribunal, in its decision, followed the earlier Tribunal ruling in the respondent's case, emphasizing the binding nature of the previous decision upheld by the Supreme Court. As a result, the appeal by the department was dismissed, and the cross objection by the respondent was disposed of accordingly.
|
