Marvel Engineering Industries and Another Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942805
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnNov-04-2009
Case NumberAppeal Nos.E/539 of 2003, 540 of 2003, E/549 of 2003, 550 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantMarvel Engineering Industries and Another
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore
Advocates:Shri G.Natarajan, Advocate. Ms.Indira Sisupal, JDR
Excerpt:
per dr.chittaranjan satapathy heard both sides. shri g.natarajan, ld. advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture pd pumps as well as parts thereof. the parts used in the manufacture of pd pumps were exempted prior to 1.3.94 and the exemption got omitted from that date till 24.4.04 after which the exemption was reinstated on representation from the industry. he states that on the very same issue, the hon’ble supreme court has passed an order in the case of w.p.i.l ltd. vs cce meerut [2005 (181) elt 359 (sc)] holding that it was a consistent policy of the government to grant exemption to such parts and that omission from the former notification cannot lead to the conclusion that the exemption was withdrawn, as the later notification did not grant exemption for first time, it was only clarificatory and hence retrospective. the hon’ble supreme court also held in the cited case that for the intervening period between 1.3.94 and 24.4.94, no duty could be demanded on parts of pd pumps. shri natarajan fairly states that the authorities below did not have the benefit of this decision of the hon’ble supreme court and hence requests for remand of the cases for fresh decision by the authorities below in the light of hon’ble supreme court’s decision in w.p.i.l ltd. (supra). heard the ld. dr ms. indira sisupal who has no objection to such a remand. 2. accordingly, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned orders and allow all the four appeals by way of remand with the direction that the cases be decided afresh by the original authority after taking into account the cited decision of the hon’ble supreme court in the case of w.p.i.l ltd. (supra). the appellants shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders. 3. all the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Judgment:

Per Dr.Chittaranjan Satapathy

Heard both sides. Shri G.Natarajan, ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants states that the appellants manufacture PD pumps as well as parts thereof. The parts used in the manufacture of PD pumps were exempted prior to 1.3.94 and the exemption got omitted from that date till 24.4.04 after which the exemption was reinstated on representation from the Industry. He states that on the very same issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed an order in the case of W.P.I.L Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut [2005 (181) ELT 359 (SC)] holding that it was a consistent policy of the Government to grant exemption to such parts and that omission from the former notification cannot lead to the conclusion that the exemption was withdrawn, as the later notification did not grant exemption for first time, it was only clarificatory and hence retrospective. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held in the cited case that for the intervening period between 1.3.94 and 24.4.94, no duty could be demanded on parts of PD pumps. Shri Natarajan fairly states that the authorities below did not have the benefit of this decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and hence requests for remand of the cases for fresh decision by the authorities below in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in W.P.I.L Ltd. (supra). Heard the ld. DR Ms. Indira Sisupal who has no objection to such a remand.

2. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, we set aside the impugned orders and allow all the four appeals by way of remand with the direction that the cases be decided afresh by the original authority after taking into account the cited decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of W.P.I.L Ltd. (supra). The appellants shall be given an adequate opportunity of hearing before passing fresh orders.

3. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand.