Commissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry Vs. Neycer (i) Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942587
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnNov-09-2009
Case NumberAppeal No.E/923 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT
AppellantCommissioner of Central Excise, Pondicherry
RespondentNeycer (i) Ltd.
Advocates:Shri T.H.Rao, SDR. Shri M.N.Bharathi, Advocate.
Excerpt:
the revenue challenges the order of the commissioner (appeals) who has remitted the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority, on the ground that after amendment of section 35a (3) of the central excise act, 1944, by the finance act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the commissioner (appeals) no longer has power of remand. 2. i have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the revenue by the decision of the hon ble gujarat high court in commissioner of central excise, ahmedabad vs medico labs [2004 (173) elt 117 (guj.)] holding that commissioner (appeals) continues to have power of remand even after the amendment to the above mentioned provision in the statute. following the decision cited supra of the hon’ble high court, i uphold the impugned order of remand, and reject the appeal.
Judgment:

The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has remitted the case for fresh decision to the adjudicating authority, on the ground that after amendment of Section 35A (3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by the Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 11.5.2001, the Commissioner (Appeals) no longer has power of remand.

2. I have heard both sides and find that the issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decision of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs Medico Labs [2004 (173) ELT 117 (Guj.)] holding that Commissioner (Appeals) continues to have power of remand even after the amendment to the above mentioned provision in the statute. Following the decision cited supra of the Hon’ble High Court, I uphold the impugned order of remand, and reject the appeal.