Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai Vs. Indcon Structurals (P) Ltd.and Another

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs indcon Structurals (P) Ltd.and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Apr 13, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/943203

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/943203
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Apr 13, 2010
Case Number: Appeal Nos.E/998 of 2003 & E/999 of 2003
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai

Advocate Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR. Shri P.C.Anand, Consultant.

Respondent

indcon Structurals (P) Ltd.and Another

Excerpt

.....was for a de novo adjudication culminating in a speaking order. we find that this direction was not scrupulously followed by learned commissioner. order-in-original no.21/2002 dated 22.07.2002 passed by learned commissioner pursuant to our remand order (final order no.1236-1239/99) did not touch the question whether the assessees were eligible for the benefit of notification no.8/96-ce (s.no.68.4) in respect of the goods cleared by them during april, 1994 to january, 1998, even though the said question was also liable to be examined afresh and decided upon. a decision on that question will have a bearing on the question whether ssi benefit could be allowed to the assessees inasmuch as this benefit would depend on the aggregate value of clearances of all specified goods, subject to relevant conditions under the ssi notification. in this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned commissioner should undertake fresh adjudication on all issues raised by the department and parties in the present appeals, and pass a speaking order after giving the parties an effective opportunity of being heard. it is made clear that the guidelines set out in final order no.508-513/2002 as regards determination of composition of goods for the purpose of s.no.68.4 of notification no.8/96-ce should be followed by the adjudicating authority while dealing with the issue relevant to that notification. 6. in the result, the impugned orders are set aside and these appeals are allowed by way of remand”. 2. in today’s appeals, the revenue also seeks remand of the case for reconsideration of various submissions. 3. on hearing both sides, we find that the prayer for remand has already been granted while disposing of appeal no.e/252/2000 of the revenue and e/589-591/2002 of the assessees. therefore, the revenue’s prayer for remand has already been answered by the earlier order of the tribunal dt. 6.3.2007 and nothing remains for decision in these two.....

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

In this case, against Order-in-Original No.21/2002 dt. 22.7.02 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, M/s.MAPCON Pvt. Ltd. and its officers and M/s.INDCON Structurals Pvt. Ltd. came up in appeal to the Tribunal vide Appeal Nos.E/589 to 591/02 and Revenue filed E/252/2000. The appeals were disposed of by Final Order No.209-212/07 dt. 6.3.07 by way of remand. The relevant portion of the Tribunal s order is reproduced herein below :-

“The direction in Final Order No.1236-1239/1999 passed by this Bench in the batch of appeals filed by the parties was for a de novo adjudication culminating in a speaking order. We find that this direction was not scrupulously followed by learned Commissioner. Order-in-Original No.21/2002 dated 22.07.2002 passed by learned Commissioner pursuant to our remand order (Final Order No.1236-1239/99) did not touch the question whether the assessees were eligible for the benefit of Notification No.8/96-CE (S.No.68.4) in respect of the goods cleared by them during April, 1994 to January, 1998, even though the said question was also liable to be examined afresh and decided upon. A decision on that question will have a bearing on the question whether SSI benefit could be allowed to the assessees inasmuch as this benefit would depend on the aggregate value of clearances of all specified goods, subject to relevant conditions under the SSI Notification. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the learned Commissioner should undertake fresh adjudication on all issues raised by the department and parties in the present appeals, and pass a speaking order after giving the parties an effective opportunity of being heard. It is made clear that the guidelines set out in Final Order No.508-513/2002 as regards determination of composition of goods for the purpose of S.No.68.4 of Notification No.8/96-CE should be followed by the adjudicating authority while dealing with the issue relevant to that Notification.

6. In the result, the impugned orders are set aside and these appeals are allowed by way of remand”.

2. In today’s appeals, the Revenue also seeks remand of the case for reconsideration of various submissions.

3. On hearing both sides, we find that the prayer for remand has already been granted while disposing of appeal No.E/252/2000 of the Revenue and E/589-591/2002 of the assessees. Therefore, the Revenue’s prayer for remand has already been answered by the earlier order of the Tribunal dt. 6.3.2007 and nothing remains for decision in these two appeals, which are accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs indcon Structurals... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; t...