Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 955 - CESTAT ALLAHABADDemand of duty - Manufactured goods or supply of bought out items - Fitting and Points & Crossings - case of respondents is that Fittings and PCs were not manufactured item but the same were various bought out and were transferred to the site, where the same were used for making the Fittings and PCs. HELD THAT:- The main ground for dropping the demand by the Adjudicating Authority is that there are no goods called Fitting and Points & Crossings. The same refer to the fabrications done in the rail tracks by various types of items, which facilitate the smooth movement of the rails. We note that subsequent to the demand order, the report of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Meerut, obtained by the adjudicating authority is to the clear effect that the respondents had purchased the various items like Flats, Bars, Rounds, Squares, Shapes and Sections, Fish Plates, Sheets, Channels, Angles, Nuts and Bolts, Washers, Clips etc. of different shape and size during the period in question, which stands reflected in their books of accounts. As per the Assessee the said goods stand further transferred to railways under their delivery challans accompanying the invoices which refer to the said items collectively as fittings. Admittedly, duty cannot be demanded on the items not manufactured by the Assessee and in the absence of any facts indicating that Fittings as also Points & Crossings are items or refer to any goods, mere mention of the same in the invoices, while clearing the various items collectively meant for such fittings etc, the demand cannot be upheld on the same. Further, the Revenue’s objection that the Tribunal only remanded the matter for supply of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, in which case it was not open to the Adjudicating Authority to go to the merits of the case cannot be appreciated inasmuch as there is no debarring in the Tribunal’s order to consider the merits of the case and to re-decide the same. It is only that on the first principle of violation of principles of natural justice that the matter was remanded. It cannot be held to be a restricted remand and we fully agree with the learned advocate appearing for the respondents that the Adjudicating Authority was within his rights to deal with the merits of the case after supplying the report of the Assistant Commissioner. As such the Revenue has no case on merits. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|