Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 1995 (7) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1995 (7) TMI 190 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
- Whether the clearances by certain companies should be clubbed with the appellant's clearance for eligibility to a benefit under Notification No. 175/86.
- Whether the findings in the impugned order regarding excise duty collection and payment of printing charges are factually incorrect.
- Whether the matter should be remanded for a precise finding on the relationship between the appellant and the job workers.
- Whether the circular of the Central Board of Excise & Customs dated 14-9-1994 should be considered.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the clearances by M/s. Karnataka Packaging Co., M/s. Trimurthy Polypacks, and M/s. Vee Pee Enterprises should be clubbed with the appellant's clearance to determine eligibility for a benefit under Notification No. 175/86. The appellant's representative argued that the findings in the Collector's order were not based on evidence and were factually incorrect. It was contended that the appellant did not collect excise duty independently and did not pay printing charges on behalf of job workers. The appellant's General Manager's statements were also highlighted, emphasizing that the appellant was not specifically notified about certain averments, and the lack of a written agreement with job workers should not imply a connection between them and the appellant.

2. The respondent's representative argued that the findings in the impugned order regarding excise duty collection and payment of printing charges were factually incorrect. It was suggested that a remand was necessary for the Adjudicating Authority to assess the evidence and determine whether the job workers were dummy units or had a principal-to-principal relationship with the appellant.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions and decided to remand the matter for further examination. The Tribunal noted that some findings in the impugned order were contested as factually incorrect and unsupported by evidence. Additionally, a circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs, which could impact the issue, was not considered in the original order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal ordered a remand, emphasizing that no opinion on the merits was expressed. The lower authority was directed to review all evidence and provide the appellant with a fair opportunity to present their case, including all available legal arguments.

4. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter was based on the need for a more thorough examination of the evidence and consideration of relevant factors, such as the circular from the Central Board of Excise & Customs. By ordering a remand, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a just and comprehensive assessment of the issue at hand, allowing both parties to present their arguments fully and address any factual inaccuracies in the original order.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates