Cce Chandigarh Vs. M/S. Khanna Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.11.2000 passed by the commissioner (appeals). vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be" to the respondents.2. none has come present on behalf of the respondents. however, the respondents vide letter dated 21.4.2001 had requested for decision of the case on merits.3. it has been submitted by the learned sdr that the question whether the disputed goods in question satisfied the definition of 'capital goods' or not for the purposes of modvat credit, requires re-examination in the light of the larger bench decision of the tribunal in cce indore vs. surya roshini, 2001(42) rlt 817(lb).4. we have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of the sdr deserves xxx to be accepted. the decision of the larger bench in the above referred case was not available to the commissioner (appeals) at that time.5. therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the commissioner (appeals) for fresh decision in the light of the law laid down in the above referred case by the larger bench of the tribunal. he will also take into consideration the other relevant law on the point which may be cited before him by both the sides. he will decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.6. accordingly, the appeal file by the revenue stands disposed of by way of remand.

Judgment:
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 27.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Vide which he had allowed the modvat credit on the goods in dispute by holding the same to be" to the respondents.

2. None has come present on behalf of the respondents. However, the respondents vide letter dated 21.4.2001 had requested for decision of the case on merits.

3. It has been submitted by the learned SDR that the question whether the disputed goods in question satisfied the definition of 'capital goods' or not for the purposes of modvat credit, requires re-examination in the light of the Larger bench decision of the Tribunal in CCE Indore Vs. Surya Roshini, 2001(42) RLT 817(LB).

4. We have also gone through the record and the impugned order and in our view the submission of the SDR deserves XXX to be accepted. The decision of the Larger Bench in the above referred case was not available to the Commissioner (Appeals) at that time.

5. Therefore, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decision in the light of the law laid down in the above referred case by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal. He will also take into consideration the other relevant law on the point which may be cited before him by both the sides. He will decide the matter after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

6. Accordingly, the appeal file by the Revenue stands disposed of by way of remand.