9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 980X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r (Technical) of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 3. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the respondent - assessee and in consequence, set-aside the order dated 3-6-2005 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Customs, Raipur in Appeal No. 38/RPR-1/2005. 4. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal filed by the assessee and thereby, was justified in setting aside of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 3-6-2005? 5. We consider it apposite to reproduce the entire order passed by the Tribunal for perusal, because, it is a short one : "When the stay applica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Ltd. v. C.C.E., Indore - 2004 (175) E.L.T. 148 and C.C.E., Vadodara v. Paushak Ltd. - 2005 (187) E.L.T. 249. On the question of clearances under Chapter X procedure being exempt clearances, the Tribunal held as under : "9. In the instant case, it is found that the clearances are as per Chapter X procedure. No duty has been paid on the DEEC due to remission provided under Chapter X, then it cannot be a case of exemption or assessable to Nil rate of duty. 10. The findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the clearance under Chapter X procedure is remission of duty, which cannot be equated with the exemption from duty is the view that cannot find fault with. The citations relied upon by the Commissioner (Appeals) are relevant t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal. No judgment of either Supreme Court or High Court were referred to or relied upon by the Tribunal in support of their views except reference to that of Tribunal and secondly, there was also no mention as to whether the judgments of the Tribunal relied upon were challenged in further appeal in High Court and if so by the aggrieved party, whether they were upheld or set aside, as the case may be. 7. In short, in our opinion, what we notice is that since the Tribunal did not advert to the factual aspects of the case in hand in detail and nor gave a clear cut finding of fact as to how and on what basis, the appellant was entitled to claim the benefit of Modvat on the inputs which according to assessee were produced by them and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
