2004 (9) TMI 110 - SC - Central Excise

Benefits under Notification No. 297/1979 - Held that - first appellate authority i.e. the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) had indicated reasons as to why it found the assessee-appellant to be entitled to benefits under the concerned notification. The CEGAT while dealing with the appeals of the revenue did not specifically refer to the conclusions of the first appellate authority and did not indicate any reason as to why it was of the view that the conclusions were not correct. Least that was required to be done was to indicate reasons for differing with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) s order. CEGAT has power to differ from the view expressed by the first appellate s authority. But that is not unbriddled power. When a different view is taken reasons to support such view must be indicated clearly expressing as to why the lower authority s view is wrong. That has not been done in the instant case - Matter remitted back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to correctness of order by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) regarding entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 297/1979 and exemption from Additional Excise Duty.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the order passed by CEGAT, challenging the denial of benefits under Notification No. 297/1979 and exemption from Additional Excise Duty. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) initially ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the benefits under the notification. However, the Revenue appealed to CEGAT, which set aside the appellate authority's decision and reinstated the adjudicating officer's orders. The appellant's counsel argued that CEGAT failed to provide reasons for disagreeing with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s conclusions and did not justify why the lower authority's view was incorrect. The Supreme Court emphasized that while CEGAT has the power to differ from the first appellate authority, it must clearly state the reasons for doing so. In this case, CEGAT did not provide adequate justification for its decision.

The Supreme Court concluded that CEGAT's failure to provide explicit reasons for overturning the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals)'s decision warranted setting aside CEGAT's order. The matter was remitted back to CEGAT for fresh consideration, allowing both parties to present supporting evidence. The Court clarified that it did not express any opinion on the case's merits. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of without any costs incurred by either party.