TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 582X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturer is required to pay any duty or not is concerned - The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has not assigned any reasons as to how the findings and conclusions recorded by the Commissioner are erroneous - Therefore, Court observed that the CEGAT had not dealt with the decision on which strong reliance had been placed by the learned Solicitor General and accordingly, set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and remitted the case to the Tribunal. - 172-177 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 16-6-2010 - D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri R.M. Chhaya, SSC, for the Appellant. Shri B.L. Narasimhan, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : H.N. Devani, J. (Oral)]. In these appeals under Section 35G of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arasimhan. 4. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 5. Admit. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration : Whether the Customs, Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order merely by placing reliance upon various decision of the Tribunal without properly adverting to the facts of the case and without discussing as to what was the ratio laid down in the said decisions and as to how the said decisions were applicable to the facts of the present case? 6. The respondent in Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2010, Shri Hari Textiles Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as M/s. Shri Hari) is engaged in manufacture of Polyester Texturised Yarn and Grey Fabrics falling unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ications issued thereunder, M/s. Shri Hari was receiving POY, on job work, for texturising the same and polyester textured yarn manufactured out of the said POY was cleared by M/s. Shri Hari to M/s. Rapier without payment of duty due thereon and without issuance of central excise invoices. Simultaneous checks were also carried out at M/s. Rapier and it was noticed that M/s. Rapier had sent POY to M/s. Shri Hari for coversion into Polyester Textured Yarn on job work basis under challans as per Rule 4(5)(a) of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2002/2004 and received back the Polyester Textured Yarn without cover of invoices or without payment of duty. M/s. Rapier adopted this practice till 17-11-2004 and thereafter, Polyester Textured yarn was receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, Rule 4(5)(a) allows the principal manufacturer to avail of CENVAT credit on the inputs sent to the job workers, if the goods are received back in the factory, after job work, within 180 days of their being sent to the job worker. It is submitted that the Tribunal has, without noticing the distinction between the two provisions, blindly followed certain decisions cited on behalf of the respondents and has held in favour of the respondents without so much as discussing as to what was the ratio laid down in the said decisions and as to how the same were applicable to the facts of the present case. 9. On the other hand, the learned advocate for the respondent has supported the impugned order of the Tribunal and has submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . are also to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. 11. Thus, the Tribunal has observed that the procedure prescribed under Notification No. 214/1986 and Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules are not very different from each other, without even adverting to the fact as to at which stage and to whom, Notification No. 214/1986 and Rule 4(5)(a) of the Cenvat Credit Rules would be applicable. The Tribunal has merely noted that the decisions cited by the learned advocate are relevant, without so much as a whisper as to how the same are relevant to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal has further observed that, In the case of Sunflag Filaments Ltd. (supra), it was clearly obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (232) E.L.T. 577 = 2009 (13) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.), the Apex Court has held thus : [4] Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid s theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated, judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into length discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
