Skip to content


Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai Vs. Majestic Poly Laminators Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No.E/260 of 2002 & E/CO/203 of 2003

Judge

Appellant

Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai

Respondent

Majestic Poly Laminators Pvt. Ltd.

Advocates:

Shri C.Dhanasekaran, SDR. Ms.Nisha Bineesh, Advocate

Excerpt:


.....job work basis as they have been doing for their own self and hence, the order of the lower appellate authority to hold that the respondents are manufacturing exempted cartons on the basis of an affidavit filed by the supplier is not correct. moreover, shri dhanasekaran, ld. sdr argues that the department was not heard in respect of the affidavit which was produced before the commissioner (appeals) and hence there has been denial of a reasonable opportunity to the department. 2. mrs.nisha bineesh, ld. advocate appearing for the respondents states that the respondents are manufacturing poly-coated material which is used for packing match boxes. in any case, the respondents have taken up the issue of limitation before the lower appellate authority who has not passed any order in that regard. she further states that the show-cause notice did not raise the question of classification and hence the original order travels beyond the show-cause notice. 3. in view of the fact that the lower appellate authority has not given a finding on the issue of time-bar though raised before him, and he has decided the matter without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the department in.....

Judgment:


Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard both sides. It is the submission of the department that the respondents have not manufactured cartons but only Polycoated paper board on job work basis as they have been doing for their own self and hence, the order of the lower appellate authority to hold that the respondents are manufacturing exempted cartons on the basis of an affidavit filed by the supplier is not correct. Moreover, Shri Dhanasekaran, ld. SDR argues that the department was not heard in respect of the affidavit which was produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) and hence there has been denial of a reasonable opportunity to the department.

2. Mrs.Nisha Bineesh, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents states that the respondents are manufacturing poly-coated material which is used for packing match boxes. In any case, the respondents have taken up the issue of limitation before the lower appellate authority who has not passed any order in that regard. She further states that the show-cause notice did not raise the question of classification and hence the original order travels beyond the show-cause notice.

3. In view of the fact that the lower appellate authority has not given a finding on the issue of time-bar though raised before him, and he has decided the matter without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing to the department in respect of the affidavit filed by the supplier, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to him for fresh decision. He shall pass a fresh order after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides.

4. The appeal is allowed by way of remand. The cross-objection also stands disposed off.




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //