TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question as to whether a prima facie case has been made out, we set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remand the proceedings for a fresh determination - Appeal is disposed of - 52 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2011 - Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and Anoop V. Mohta , JJ. Shri Prakash Shah with Jas Sanghavi i/b PDS Legal, for the Appellant. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly with Jitendra B. Mishra, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT This Appeal by the assessee arises from an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 11th April 2011 on an application for waiver of pre-deposit. The Appellant has formulated the substantial questions of law that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ditional consideration for the job work undertaken and ought to have been but was not included in the value of the finished products supplied by the Appellant between 2003-2004 and 2007-2008. The Department alleged that there was a suppression of facts on the part of the Appellant. A notice to show cause was issued on 2nd February 2009 applying an extended period of limitation. The Commissioner of Central Excisc, Nagpur confirmed the duty demand as noted earlier. 5. The Tribunal, while considering the application for stay and for waiver of pre-deposit held prima facie that there was no suppression on the part of the Appellant with intent to evade payment of duty particularly having regard to the fact that there were contrary decisions re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regard, Counsel submitted that the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in P.R. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi, 2010 (249) E.L.T. 232 (Tri.-Bang.) has taken a final view on the subject after taking note of all the aforesaid judgments and hence, a complete waiver ought to have been granted. 8. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the Revenue that : (i) The jurisdiction to entertain the present Appeal would lie before the Nagpur Bench since the Appellant has its registered office there and the order of adjudication was passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise at Nagpur; and (ii) The view of the Tribunal is consistent with law and does not warrant reconsideration. 9. Insofar a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he application was the order of the Tribunal which is located at Mumbai and consequently this Court would have jurisdiction. As a matter of fact the Division Bench held that both the High Courts of Madras as well as this Court would have territorial jurisdiction and it was open to a suitor to select a forum which was normally the case when the cause of action fell within the territorial jurisdiction of two Courts. Following the law laid down by the Supreme Court and as reiterated in the judgment of the Division Bench, we decline to accede to the preliminary objection. 10. On the question of merits, we are of the view that it would be appropriate in the interests of justice to remand the proceedings back to the Tribunal for re-considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
