Flistex Magnetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. appellants filed these appeals against the common adjudication order.3. appellants filed the appeals before the cegat against the duty demand and for imposition of penalty and the tribunal vide final order nos. 251-253/2001-b, dated 8-5-2001 [2001 (135) e.l.t. 857 (tri.)] remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the duty liability in respect of the goods in question on depreciated value.4. the present impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the tribunal.5. the contention of the appellants is that in spite of finding given by the tribunal that duty liability should be recalculated on depreciated value of the goods, the commissioner of central excise in the present impugned order had not allowed any depreciation in respect of capital goods.6. we find that the tribunal while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority held that the goods in question are liable for confiscation but agreed with the contention of the appellants that the duty liability is to be recalculated on the depreciated value of the goods. in spite of this order, the commissioner of central excise in the present impugned order had not complied with the direction given in the remand order. therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority again to recalculate the duty on depreciated value of the goods in view of the remand order passed by the tribunal and also after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.

Judgment:
1. Appellants filed these appeals against the common Adjudication Order.

3. Appellants filed the appeals before the CEGAT against the duty demand and for imposition of penalty and the Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 251-253/2001-B, dated 8-5-2001 [2001 (135) E.L.T. 857 (Tri.)] remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to recalculate the duty liability in respect of the goods in question on depreciated value.

4. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance to the remand order passed by the Tribunal.

5. The contention of the appellants is that in spite of finding given by the Tribunal that duty liability should be recalculated on depreciated value of the goods, the Commissioner of Central Excise in the present impugned order had not allowed any depreciation in respect of capital goods.

6. We find that the Tribunal while remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority held that the goods in question are liable for confiscation but agreed with the contention of the appellants that the duty liability is to be recalculated on the depreciated Value of the goods. In spite of this order, the Commissioner of Central Excise in the present impugned order had not complied with the direction given in the remand order. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority again to recalculate the duty on depreciated value of the goods in view of the remand order passed by the Tribunal and also after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellants.