2005 (1) TMI 169 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Correctness of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) in reversing the duty demand against the respondents after re-quantification.
2. Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the remand order by determining the excisability/dutiability of the goods in question.
3. Applicability of the judgment of the Apex Court reversing the Patna High Court's decision on the excisability/dutiability of the goods.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved the Revenue contesting the correctness of the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which had reversed the duty demand against the respondents after re-quantification following a remand order by the Tribunal dated 30th March, 1999. The learned SDR argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) exceeded the scope of the remand order by determining the excisability/dutiability of the goods, which had already been decided by the Tribunal in its Final Order. Reference was made to the Mafatlal Industries case by the Apex Court.

2. On the other hand, the learned Counsel contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not go beyond the remand order and that the judgment of the Patna High Court, which formed the basis of the Tribunal's decision on excisability/dutiability, had been set aside by the Apex Court. The Tribunal was required to re-examine whether the benefit of the Apex Court's judgment could be given to the respondents, who had not challenged the Tribunal's final order. The Commissioner (Appeals) was also to determine if she could reverse the adjudicating authority's order in line with the remand order.

3. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not address the core issues raised by both sides. The remand order was solely for re-quantification of duty, not for determining excisability/dutiability. The Commissioner (Appeals) needed to consider whether the Apex Court's judgment applied to the respondents and if she could go beyond the remand order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision in light of these considerations, allowing the Revenue's appeal by way of remand.