M/S. Narton Polymers Pvt. Ltd. S. Meganathan Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/944109
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnApr-05-2011
Case Number Appeal Nos. E/285 and 286/2004 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 28/2003 dated 25.8.2003 pa
Judge THE HONOURABLE MS. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, VICE PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER
AppellantM/S. Narton Polymers Pvt. Ltd. S. Meganathan
RespondentCommissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Advocates:For the Appellants: M. Karthikeyan, Advocate. For the Respondent: T.H. Rao, SDR.
Excerpt:
per dr. chittaranjan satapathy 1. heard both sides. 2. by order dated 10.6.1996 the adjudicating commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of rs.31,49,461/- and had imposed a penalty of rs. 3 lakhs. while hearing the appeal against the said order the tribunal by order dated 25.9.2001 had directed the adjudicating commissioner to work out the eligibility of the appellants to modvat credit and redetermine the penalty amount after taking into account the credit entitlement. in the remand proceeding, the adjudicating commissioner has considered the letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the assistant commissioner and has come to the finding that on the basis of the said letter the modvat credit cannot be allowed. 3. after hearing arguments from both sides, we are of the view that since the cited letter of the assistant commissioner was not conclusive and adequate in the opinion of the adjudicating commissioner, she was free to call for a further report and / or documents from the assistant commissioner and the appellants to decide the matter and carry out the remand directions. since that has not been done the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating commissioner to decide the same afresh after calling for a fresh verification report and after giving adequate opportunity to the appellants of a personal hearing as well as an opportunity to produce any documentary evidence they wish to produce in support of their claim for the modvat credit. 4. the appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above terms.
Judgment:

Per Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy

1. Heard both sides.

2. By order dated 10.6.1996 the adjudicating Commissioner had confirmed a duty demand of Rs.31,49,461/- and had imposed a penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs. While hearing the appeal against the said order the Tribunal by order dated 25.9.2001 had directed the adjudicating Commissioner to work out the eligibility of the appellants to MODVAT credit and redetermine the penalty amount after taking into account the credit entitlement. In the remand proceeding, the adjudicating Commissioner has considered the letter dated 20.4.1998 issued by the Assistant Commissioner and has come to the finding that on the basis of the said letter the MODVAT credit cannot be allowed.

3. After hearing arguments from both sides, we are of the view that since the cited letter of the Assistant Commissioner was not conclusive and adequate in the opinion of the adjudicating Commissioner, she was free to call for a further report and / or documents from the Assistant Commissioner and the appellants to decide the matter and carry out the remand directions. Since that has not been done the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the adjudicating Commissioner to decide the same afresh after calling for a fresh verification report and after giving adequate opportunity to the appellants of a personal hearing as well as an opportunity to produce any documentary evidence they wish to produce in support of their claim for the MODVAT credit.

4. The appeals are allowed by way of remand in the above terms.