9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to High Court? - Held that: - Given the fact, that one judgment i.e., the judgment rendered in Ambika Overseas has been confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, whereas, the other judgment i.e., Cadila Healthcare Limited has been reversed by the Gujarat High Court, we are of the view that the matter would have to be remanded to the Tribunal, for a fresh adjudication, on merits. Whether the decision of CESTAT is correct in law as it had not gone into the facts and circumstances of the case in hand in detail and passed the order without discussing in detail the merits of the case which appears to be different than the facts of the case that were relied upon? - Held that: - the impugned judgment and order is set aside, with a direction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsels for the parties that in so far as the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ambika Overseas is concerned, that has been affirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the judgment titled: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana Vs. Ambika Overseas, 2012 (25) S.T.R. 348 (P & H). 3.2.As regards, the judgment rendered by the Tribunal in Cadila Healthcare Limited is concerned, (which was in favour of the Assessee), it has been reversed by the Gujarat High Court, in the case titled: Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad II Vs. Cadila Healthcare Limited, 2013 (30) S.T.R.3 (Guj.). 4.A reading of the judgment and order of the Tribunal would show that the Tribunal did not make any observation, with regard to the facts, on accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted case, has held that since such explanation is declaratory in nature, it would apply, retrospectively. 7.As indicated above, the Tribunal has not ruled on the merits of the case and in particular, has not returned a finding, one way or the other, as to whether expenses incurred by the Assessee in the form of commission paid to foreign agents was a pre-removal expense. The Tribunal would have to rule on the said aspect, and it is, perhaps, only, when, it comes to the conclusion that the service in issue purportedly, rendered by the foreign agents was rendered prior to the removal, can credit be taken for duty paid on the same. It is the case of respondent no.1 that services of foreign agents are used in locating foreign buyers, which in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
