TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t: - the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. [2013 (3) TMI 303 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], squarely coveres the issue in the present case, where it was held that power to remand the matter back in appropriate cases is inbuilt in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and it is apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t under the notes to clause 122, which stated that the said clause 122 seeks to amend Section 35A of the of the Central Excise Act, 1944, so as to withdraw the power of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matters back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration. It was so held by the ruling of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of MIL India Ltd. Versus Commissioner reported at 2007 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precedence over the finding of the Apex Court in their precedent decision in the matter of Union of India Versus Umesh Dhaimode , which is based on the analysis of the provision itself which was reported at 1998 (98) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.). It was further held, otherwise also Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as amended, confers power on the Commissioner (Appeals) to annul the Order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent-assessee. Accordingly, in view of the power to remand the matter back in appropriate cases, is inbuilt in Section 35A(3) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the facts on record, we find that the precedent ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Versus Honda Seil Power Products Ltd. (supra), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
