Cce Vs. Komal Straw Board and Mills

Cce vs Komal Straw Board and Mills

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided Dec 06, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/19945

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/19945
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: R T Lajja, P Bajaj
Decided On: Dec 06, 2000
Subject: Service Tax

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Service Tax

Key legal issue: Service Tax

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cce

Respondent

Komal Straw Board and Mills

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(74)ECC607

Excerpt

1. in this appeal filed by the revenue, the respondents are m/s. komal straw board and mill and the order-in-appeal is of the commissioner of central excise (appeals), chandigarh being order dated 22.6.2000.the ld. commissioner of central excise (appeals) has made a reference to the notification no. 22/94-ce dated 1.3.94 as amended by notification no. 22/95-ce dated 16.3.1995 and had mentioned that no retrospective effect could be given to the amending notification. we find that the central excise duty had been demanded for the period subsequent to the issue of the amending notification and no demand has been made for the earlier period earlier than 16.3.95 when amending notification no. 22/95-ce was issued. it is the settled position that amending notifications are in force from the date of their issue. in the case of i.t.c. bhadrachalam paper boards ltd. 1994 (52) ecr 331 (sc), the hon'ble supreme court had held that the effective date of the amending notification has to be the date of the amending notification.as in the present case, the duty has been demanded for the subsequent period as pointed out by the id. sdr, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. commissioner of central excise (appeals). as he has not gone into the merits of the case, the ld. advocate submits that the matter be remanded so that he could argue on merits.4. we agree with this contention of the ld. advocate and after setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal, remand the matter to the jurisdictional commissioner of central excise (appeals) for re-hearing and deciding the matter afresh on merits after hearing both the sides.the appeal of the revenue is thus allowed by way of remand. ordered accordingly.

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal filed by the Revenue, the respondents are M/s. Komal Straw Board and Mill and the order-in-appeal is of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh being order dated 22.6.2000.

The Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) has made a reference to the Notification No. 22/94-CE dated 1.3.94 as amended by Notification No. 22/95-CE dated 16.3.1995 and had mentioned that no retrospective effect could be given to the amending notification. We find that the Central Excise duty had been demanded for the period subsequent to the issue of the amending notification and no demand has been made for the earlier period earlier than 16.3.95 when amending Notification No. 22/95-CE was issued. It is the settled position that amending notifications are in force from the date of their issue. In the case of I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paper Boards Ltd. 1994 (52) ECR 331 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the effective date of the amending notification has to be the date of the amending notification.

As in the present case, the duty has been demanded for the subsequent period as pointed out by the Id. SDR, we do not agree with the view taken by the Ld. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). As he has not gone into the merits of the case, the Ld. Advocate submits that the matter be remanded so that he could argue on merits.

4. We agree with this contention of the Ld. Advocate and after setting aside the impugned order-in-appeal, remand the matter to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) for re-hearing and deciding the matter afresh on merits after hearing both the sides.

The appeal of the Revenue is thus allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Cce vs Komal Straw Board and Mills Same Subject Service Tax Same Judge R T Lajja, P Bajaj