9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 12 - AT - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Furnace Oil - supply of steam to sister unit - whether Cenvat credit on Furnace Oil can be curtailed in view of the fact that the appellant supplied steam generated in their factory to their sister unit located adjacent? - Held that - The matter has already been decided in their own case M/S ALKEM LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS CCE DAMAN 2014 (9) TMI 686 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD and has been followed in their case for the earlier period. In the said decision, the Tribunal has remanded the matter to Adjudicating Authority to ascertain certain facts. The impugned order in this case is also set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter in terms of earlier decision of this Tribunal - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
Cenvat credit on Furnace Oil supply of steam to sister unit Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad, delivered by Mr. Raju, Member (Technical), revolves around the issue of whether Cenvat credit on Furnace Oil can be curtailed due to the appellant supplying steam to their sister unit. The appellant's counsel highlighted that previous orders in their favor had been issued by the Tribunal, directing the Adjudicating Authority to gather specific facts. It was noted that the original adjudicating authority, in compliance with the Tribunal's order, dropped the demands after the matter was remanded. Consequently, the impugned order in the present case was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to decide in accordance with the Tribunal's earlier decision dated 28.08.2014. The appeal was disposed of through remand, emphasizing adherence to the previous Tribunal decision. This judgment underscores the importance of consistency in legal decisions and the binding nature of precedents set by higher authorities. It showcases the significance of adherence to prior rulings and the impact they have on subsequent cases. The reference to the earlier decision of the Tribunal dated 28.08.2014 highlights the reliance on established legal principles and the requirement for the Adjudicating Authority to follow precedent in similar cases. The Tribunal's role in directing the Adjudicating Authority to consider specific facts demonstrates the meticulous approach taken in resolving legal disputes and ensuring a thorough examination of relevant details. The dismissal of the appeal by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court further solidifies the Tribunal's decision and reinforces the authority of the Tribunal's rulings in similar matters. The remand of the case to the Adjudicating Authority signifies the procedural aspect of legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of facts and adherence to established legal guidelines. Overall, the judgment highlights the procedural intricacies involved in legal cases and the significance of precedent in guiding decision-making processes within the legal framework.
|
