Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut Vs. M/S. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd - Court Judgment |
| Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi |
| Jul-31-2012 |
| Excise Appeal No.1571 of 2010 SM |
| THE HONOURABLE MS. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) |
| Commissioner of Central Excise Meerut |
| M/S. Bazpur Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd |
| For the Appellants: G.K. Dixit, Advocate. For the Respondent: DR. Sukriti Das, Advocate. |
oral order no per archana wadhwa: 1. revenue is in appeal against the order of commissioner (appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter to asstt. commissioner with direction to await the order of commissioner on respondent’s remission application. revenue’s application is on the ground that commissioner has no power to remand. 2. without going into the above legal question, i find that tribunal has admittedly the power to remand. the asstt. commissioner has confirmed the demand against respondents without awaiting the decision of the commissioner on remission application. confirmation of demand was directly linked with the remission application. as such, it was clearly on the part of the adjudicating authority to await the decision and matter needed to be remanded back. as such, i direct the asstt. commissioner to decide the issue after the outcome of remission application. 3. revenue’s appeal disposed of in the above manner.
Oral Order No
Per Archana Wadhwa:
1. Revenue is in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) vide which he has remanded the matter to Asstt. Commissioner with direction to await the order of Commissioner on respondent’s remission application. Revenue’s application is on the ground that Commissioner has no power to remand.
2. Without going into the above legal question, I find that Tribunal has admittedly the power to remand. The Asstt. Commissioner has confirmed the demand against respondents without awaiting the decision of the Commissioner on remission application. Confirmation of demand was directly linked with the remission application. As such, it was clearly on the part of the adjudicating authority to await the decision and matter needed to be remanded back. As such, I direct the Asstt. Commissioner to decide the issue after the outcome of remission application.
3. Revenue’s appeal disposed of in the above manner.