9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to show in what manner the same would not apply to the two appeals, which were before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 - this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, PuneI Vs. Syntel International Pvt. Ltd., [2015 (7) TMI 887 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has taken a view that though the appellate Authority has power of remand, the same should not be exercised routinely and as a matter of course. Appeal disposed off. - Central Excise Appeal No. 177 -178 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 21-12-2017 - M. S. Sanklecha And Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ. Mr. Prakash Shah a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal for the appellant Ms. P. S. Cardozo for the respondent ORDER P. C. 1. These two appeals under Section 35G of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ester Chips and Fully Drawn Yarn (FDY) (the said goods). Both the Units II and III are clearing its goods to the independent buyers and also captively consuming it by transferring to its sister units. The value of goods captively consumed was taken as the transaction value of sale to independent buyers in terms of Rule 4 of the Central Excise Valuation Rules, 2000 (Valuation Rules 2000). According to the Revenue, the appropriate Rule to be applied was Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules i.e. 110% of the cost of production. Thus, on the above basis, the Revenue issued show cause notices demanding duty to Unit no. II was from April, 2011 to March, 2014 and for Unit no.III the period was from August, 2009 to November, 2013. 6. Both the notices is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er went a change. 8. When the two appeals of the appellant from the two orders dated 19th February, 2015 came up before the Tribunal, the appellant placed reliance upon the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 24th August, 2015 on identical fact situation and law in respect of its Unit No.II for the earlier period to contend that the issue stood covered in its favour. However, the common impugned order dated 28th October, 2015 of the Tribunal has after making a reference to the above submission and making reference to the larger bench decision in Ispat Industries Ltd. (surpa) and setting aside the two orders dated 10th February, 2015 of the Commissioner in the two appeals, restored the issue to him for fresh adjudication. This after holdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 24th August, 2015 to show in what manner the same would not apply to the two appeals, which were before the Tribunal leading to the impugned order dated 28th October, 2015. Thus, a non speaking order. In fact, this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, PuneI Vs. Syntel International Pvt. Ltd., 2015 (39) STR 27 has taken a view that though the appellate Authority has power of remand, the same should not be exercised routinely and as a matter of course. It is only where proper opportunity has not been given to the parties or there is some lacuna in the case, which warrants a fresh consideration that the remand should be made. Therefore, an order remanding the issue for fresh consideration has to be supported by reasons i.e. why ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
