Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (3) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y - During the pendency of the appeal the adjudicating authority reassessed the show-cause notices and confirmed the demand against the appellant - Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order passed appeal of the revenue and set aside the order of the original adjudicating authority there was no direction given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-adjudication of the show cause notices. Despite that the adjudicating authority in over-enthusiasm re-adjudicated the show-cause notices and passed the order dated 29.1.2010 confirming the demand against the appellant despite the facts that it was brought to the notice of the adjudicating authority that the appeal has been filed before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Hinoday Industries Ltd. are manufacturers of excisable goods falling under Chapter 37, 84 and 87 of the Central Excise Tariff. They sent out various types of cast articles for job work to various job workers for the purposes of machining/fettling, bending, or carrying out any other operation necessary for the manufacture of final product. The finished goods are removed from the premises of the job workers and directly sent to the customers in terms of the permission granted to them under Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT credit Rules, 2004. The aforesaid permission was granted subject to undertaking given by the appellant that the waste and scrap if generated at the job workers end would either be brought back or removed on payment of Central Excise .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... workers' premises after 31.3.2000. Against the said order the department filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that in terms of the permission given by the Asst. Commissioner under Rule 4(6) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant had given an undertaking that they would discharge the duty liability on waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises in case they failed to bring back such waste and scrap. Therefore, in terms of the undertaking given, the appellant are liable to discharge duty liability on waste and scrap generated at the job workers' premises. The ld. lower appellate authority accepted the plea of the department and set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and held that th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ceedings, passed the impugned order. He further submitted that this Tribunal vide order no. A/385/2011/SMB/C-IV dated 19.09.2011 set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 21.08.2009. In view of this, the proceedings initiated by the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority in the impugned order are not required at all. Therefore, impugned order be set aside. 5. Heard the ld. counsel. 6. In this case I find that two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant on 18.1.2008 and 2.5.2008 for demand of duty on clearance of waste and scrap generated at the end of the job worker during the impugned period. Proceedings against both show-cause notices were conducted by the adjudicating authority and the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Commissioner (Appeals) has also not bothered about the stay of operation of the order dated 21.8.2009 by this Tribunal. This shows that the officers of the department have no respect for the orders passed by this Tribunal and they are following their own law which results in unnecessary litigation before this Tribunal. In this case, till disposal of the appeal against the order dated 21.08.2009 by this Tribunal, the litigation could have been avoided but both the lower authorities chose to continue unnecessary litigation. The action of both the lower authorities is not appreciable at all. 8. With these observations, I find that neither re-adjudication nor any order was required to be passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) till the fina .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates